I beg to move

That this Assembly supports the Chief Constable in his campaign to secure additional resources for the PSNI; notes with growing concern the serious pressures facing local and neighbourhood policing, crime investigations and rank-and-file officers as a result of chronic underfunding; highlights that the Chief Constable and his officers have a statutory responsibility to protect life and property, preserve law and order and prevent the commission of offences; deplores recent correspondence issued by the Department of Justice criticising the PSNI’s efforts to secure extra funding from the UK Government; shares the Police Federation’s view that this was an attempt to gag, embarrass and chastise the Chief Constable; calls on the Minister of Justice to apologise; and further calls on the Minister to urgently recommit to reversing the decline in police funding and police officer numbers.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for debate. Keith, please open the debate on the motion.

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the case for additional policing resources. The Democratic Unionist Party stands with the Chief Constable as he continues to make the case powerfully for additional resources for policing in Northern Ireland. In tabling the motion, my party and I understand the strain on the current PSNI budget and the need for a budgetary increase to ensure community safety and combat crime in all its forms.

Each of us is seeing growing pressure on neighbourhood policing, crime investigation and community PSNI officers in our constituencies. It is deeply troubling that the Justice Minister has endorsed attempts to undermine what was an entirely legitimate request for extra support from the Prime Minister.

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he point me to where I endorsed any such attempt to gag anyone?

Minister, you can respond when you have the opportunity; maybe you will feed back in your comments. Did you support the letter from the permanent secretary to the Chief Constable?

Is the Member happy to give way? As I made clear, it is not a letter that I would be sighted on in the course of my duties.

OK. The Minister can obviously feed back later, if she has had time to reflect, on whether she is supportive of the letter that was written. Whether she saw the letter or not is irrelevant: did she support it?

I will continue. The role of the Chief Constable includes being the accounting officer for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In light of that, the Chief Constable was entitled to make approaches to the Prime Minister on the financing of the PSNI. Funding of the PSNI involves the interests and responsibilities of not only our devolved Government in Stormont but the Westminster Government. It is the Chief Constable's role to ensure that he has a significant investment to increase police officer numbers and to allow him to ensure that we have a visible, accessible, responsive and community-focused service.

For some time, the PSNI has warned of the pressures facing its finances as a result of years of underinvestment, but those warnings have been largely ignored by the Department of Justice and the UK Government. Funding in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 increased by 20%. By comparison, the PSNI budget has gone down slightly. Over the same period, inflation was at 36% and, consequently, the PSNI budget has decreased.

At a meeting with the Northern Ireland Policing Board in April 2024, the Chief Constable said:

"My focus is now firmly fixed on securing an improved budget settlement for policing. For too long, officer and staff numbers have been allowed to decline, along with the supporting infrastructure. Policing is at the heart of any functioning society and needs to be given adequate priority in funding decisions both by the NI Assembly and Department of Justice."

He also highlighted the following:

"Despite the NI Block growing ... the police budget has fallen from £903m to £892m, without any adjustment for purchasing power or inflation. Whether intentional or otherwise, the reality is that the priority of policing has been eroded and this inevitably comes at a cost to services."

The Chief Constable should be commended, not chastised, for his action to date. As well as the forthright approach that he has taken to the challenges that his organisation faces, Jon Boutcher is well known and highly respected in UK policing and has a strong relationship with Ministers and officials in Whitehall. Why, then, should he be expected to hide his light under a bushel and not use every tool at his disposal to advocate for the best outcome for Northern Ireland?

In recent weeks, I had the opportunity to complete a weekend ride-along with officers in Magherafelt. That gave me an opportunity to understand at first hand the many issues facing our local officers. The trip around Magherafelt started at 7.30 pm and ended at around 2.15 am on Saturday night/Sunday morning. Thankfully, there was little action that night, but it was a great opportunity to have a one-to-one conversation with two officers for the entire night in the back of a police car. We were heavily flak-jacketed up, but it has to be done, and it was good to get an understanding of what the PSNI faces nightly. I recommend anybody to do it.

The Chief Constable and his predecessor have highlighted to the Policing Board stark warnings about the impacts of cuts on front-line policing in Northern Ireland across the political spectrum. Concerns have been well documented and recognised. We believe that the Chief Constable was right to seek additional funding from the Prime Minister and the UK Treasury, and that is not at all the position held by the Northern Ireland Executive. It is also crucial that the PSNI has the necessary resources to combat the ongoing threat from dissident republicans who still seek to unleash terror in our community. A significant proportion of the police budget is made up of additional security agreed with the UK Government. The idea that it violates protocol or principle for the Chief Constable to advocate for additional resources from the UK Government is therefore baffling; in fact, it would be remiss of him not to raise those issues at the highest levels of His Majesty's Government.

I am sure that we all agree that there has been chronic underfunding of policing and public services in Northern Ireland and that that must be addressed. We will continue to press the Government to tackle those challenges and to urge others to support that crucial message, not to undermine it. We hope that the Minister will reflect on the damage caused by her Department's intervention in this case.

An advantage has come from this difficult situation in that it seems to have sparked more constructive engagement by the Minister with the PSNI on the Chief Constable's proposed recovery plan for rebuilding officer numbers. Let us be clear, however, that that should not have required public anger at the Minister and her Department's attitude towards the Chief Constable and his attempt to secure the necessary funding.

The PSNI has statutory obligations to protect life and property, maintain law and order, prevent crime and bring offenders to justice. The DUP will always side with the Chief Constable in his efforts to uphold the rule of law and build safer communities across Northern Ireland. Last week in the House of Commons, our party leader, Gavin Robinson, urged the Prime Minister to provide a funding package to alleviate the current pressures on the PSNI. That is where the focus of the House should be.

The amendments proposed by the SDLP and the UUP are in keeping with the spirit of our motion. The focus on increasing additional security funding is especially relevant, as that has plateaued in recent years and no longer reflects the challenges facing officers and our citizens from dissident republicans. Those gangs exert criminal control over many of our communities.

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after "offences;" and insert: "strongly disagrees with any rebuke about the approach of the Chief Constable to the Prime Minister; re-endorses the recommendation in the Patten report that the number of full-time police officers should be 7,500, with the ambition of increasing that number further; endorses the Chief Constable's assessment that, since 2010, the policing budget has experienced a fall in real terms of 29%; and calls on the Minister of Justice, the Executive and the British Government to work with the NI Policing Board and the PSNI to urgently provide the funding to comprehensively address these structural deficits in the 2024-25 financial year and the subsequent years of this Assembly mandate."

The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

I welcome the opportunity for the Assembly to discuss and debate the hugely important issue of policing resources. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board.

Recent events have laid bare and made worse the dire budgetary situation in which the PSNI finds itself. For years, we have read the reports and heard the warnings, although some of us may have chosen not to hear them. Now, however, everyone sees and feels the effects and impact of sustained underinvestment in policing. Whether for the policing of racially motivated rioting in Belfast or of recreational rioting masquerading as republicanism in Derry, reinforcements from elsewhere on these islands have been required. Our Police Service has had to request assistance, through mutual aid, to restore and maintain order on our streets and to protect people and property. Our thoughts are with the officers injured during the disorder, and we wish them swift and full recoveries. Our thoughts are also with their colleagues, who are under-resourced, overstretched and at constant risk of attack, injury or even worse, as they do their job every day and night to protect and serve the community.

It is not only in the highly trained public order crews that we do not have as many officers as we need; successive deficit Budgets have ensured that that is the case across the Police Service. We see cuts to neighbourhood policing, making areas feel less safe, and cuts to traffic policing, making our roads less safe. Response times to calls are getting slower, and investigations have to be prioritised against one another and are taking longer. That undermines not just the efforts of good police officers but the community's confidence in policing. In some areas, that confidence has been hard won. In other areas, including my constituency, there is still a long way to go to build confidence in the new beginning to policing, and that will be 100 times harder if we end up with a Police Service that can barely perform its basic functions because of budgetary shortfalls. In some areas, there remains antipathy and downright opposition to policing, despite the progress that has been made. The hangover from historical issues — the legacy of some negative actions by the RUC during the conflict — has not been shaken off, and there are criminal paramilitary organisations that are only too happy to exploit that. It is made much easier for them to do that if and when the police are not able to respond to ordinary everyday calls about burglaries, antisocial behaviour and road traffic collisions.

While the bleak budgetary landscape of the PSNI is often proffered as an explanation, it sometimes feels to people like more of an excuse. It allows those with alternative, sometimes less-than-honourable, motives to portray the police as uncaring and for them to try to assume the mantle of protectors of the community themselves. It is not just good people and victims of crime who will notice a reduced police presence and a reduced capacity to respond to calls; the bad guys will too. We cannot leave communities vulnerable and people prey to the coercive control of criminal organisations. Therefore, it is not just obvious but essential that we come together and work together to support every effort and initiative to attract extra funding from whomever or wherever we might get it.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the Justice Minister's often-touted commitment to respecting the operational independence of the Chief Constable is in contrast to her Department's public excoriation of the Chief Constable's acting in accordance with that operational independence?

I thank the Member for that intervention. I think that the Justice Minister addressed or attempted to address some of those issues and will do so again later in today's debate, but I understand where he is coming from.

We understand and support the efforts of the Executive to extract further and fairer budget settlements from Whitehall. The holes in our Budget, be they for policing, health, education or housing, did not appear overnight. We will not be found wanting in pushing the UK Government to fill those holes, which they have been leaving us with for years. However, the Chief Constable obviously felt that the case that he and his predecessor had been making to the Executive for policing was either not being listened to or not landing. His decision to go straight to the Prime Minister was, I assume, borne out of frustration and sheer desperation. Who better to outline the stark realities of the state of policing and the stark danger of not giving the PSNI not just the funding that it wants but the funding that it needs to protect life and property, preserve law and order and prevent the commission of offences? He should be supported, not silenced. As our amendment states, we disagree with the rebuke that he received, including its tone and timing. While the letter bore the signature of a senior civil servant, it is hard not to suspect that, despite the Minister's very recent assurances, it had the fingerprints of maybe more than one Minister on it.

Our amendment removes the call on the Justice Minister to apologise. It is not that we do not think that she has questions to answer. In fairness to the Minister, she has answered some of them already, and I am sure that she will answer more as the debate proceeds. However, we are not going to use the issue to score political points. It is far too important for that. This is something that we should be united on, not divided on. Our focus should be on getting more resources, growing police numbers and working together with the Executive, the UK Government, the PSNI and the Policing Board to do so. We need to make good and go beyond the pledges in 'New Decade, New Approach' and the promise of Patten in terms not only of police numbers but of the representativeness and effectiveness of the Police Service. There is a lot of work for us to get on with. Let us get on with it.

I beg to move amendment No 2:

Leave out all after "chastise the Chief Constable;" and insert: "calls on the Minister of Justice to apologise and to urgently recommit to reversing the decline in police funding and police officer numbers; and further calls on the UK Government to urgently commit to increased, ring-fenced funding for the PSNI through the additional security funding mechanism to stop the decline in police numbers and to support the Northern Ireland Office on matters of national security."

Thank you, Alan. Likewise, you have 10 minutes to propose your amendment and five minutes to wind.

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

In September 1999, Chris Patten delivered his report and recommendations on the future of policing in Northern Ireland. If he were to present a report on where policing is 25 years later, would he be satisfied with the progress, and would he award an A* grade for how his recommendations have been taken forward? I suspect not. He based his recommendations on the number of police officers on an assumption that the peace gained by the Good Friday Agreement would become the norm, with the proviso that any upsurge in violence would lead to an increase in police numbers. There is no doubt that our society has moved beyond the daily mayhem of indiscriminate bombing and the wanton murder that terrorist murderers inflicted on all of our people. However, on occasions, live ammunition is still being fired towards police officers with no regard to who may fall victim to such actions. Petrol bombs and bricks are still being thrown at our police officers, and many of those officers still feel the need to check under their cars every morning for explosive devices planted by those who refuse to move on. Would Patten, 25 years on, feel that there is a surge in violence that might warrant an upward adjustment on his recommended police numbers?

What did Patten recommend in 1999? He envisaged a Police Service made up of 7,500 full-time officers supported by 2,500 locally recruited part-time reservists to police the peaceful situation that, he hoped, the Good Friday Agreement would produce. What is the current position on policing numbers? The Chief Constable reported last week to the Policing Board that the numbers stand at around 6,300, with just a handful of part-time reservists. Of that 6,300, he currently can deploy only 4,500 officers on the streets due to illness and injury. Chief Constable Boutcher has a statutory duty to protect life and property, to prevent crime and to bring those who break the law before the courts. He is accountable to deliver and is judged by how effectively he does so. He needs more officers, and, to recruit and train new officers in numbers that outstrip the natural wastage of officer retirements, he needs more budget. What did he do? He wrote to the Prime Minister directly, pleading for more resource and referencing the national security crisis for additional budget from the Government to cover the situation. My party applauds him for taking that direct action and rejects any ham-fisted attempts to silence him. I was pleased to hear him informing the Policing Board last week in a determined and robust manner that no one will stop him fighting for what he considers a just cause that is very much in the interests of the Northern Ireland public and of the service and the officers that he commands.

Our amendment calls on the Minister to not just be a cheerleader for the police but do more to reverse the decline in police funding and police officer numbers, and I commend it to the House. In doing so, my party pledges our continued full support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the efforts of the Chief Constable in highlighting what he needs to increase the level of service that he wishes to deliver and that, he considers, all the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

Thank you, Alan. I inform the Assembly that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

First, let me declare an interest as a sitting member of the Policing Board.

I think that it is fair to state that the vast majority of Members, if not all Members, will agree that there are unprecedented resource difficulties for the PSNI. A Police Service with a minimum need of 7,500 police officers that is sitting at approximately 6,400 and is losing 300 officers annually through retirement is unsustainable and unacceptable. There are substantial gaps at all sections and levels of policing, as was mentioned. It is perhaps witnessed most readily in local areas, where the number and visibility of neighbourhood and local police officers has diminished drastically. There is a recruitment plan to increase the number of officers over the next three years to 7,000, but, of course, that will require funding.

The fact is that the North has been vastly underfunded. A decade and a half of Tory austerity has been a disaster for our public services. It has had a significant impact on our health and social care system, our education system and, of course, policing, to name just a few. The current British Government must change tack from their predecessors and properly invest in public services. The Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, supported by Executive colleagues, has led the efforts in calling on the British Government for further investment in public services. The four-party Executive and the Assembly have collectively called on the British Government to address the underfunding of the North so that we can meet the needs of our people. It is important that we continue to work together constructively in pressing the British Government in that regard.

In that context, calling for a ministerial apology or accusations of gagging attempts by the Justice Department are not constructive. I was at the Policing Board meeting on Thursday, as were a number of other Members. I listened carefully to the public session with the Chief Constable, which was being streamed live. Jon Boutcher was forthright in his views. Let me quote some of his words. In summary, he said:

"In drawing a line under the issue, I am delighted to announce that I and my team are working collectively and positively with the Minister, the permanent secretary and the Department of Justice preparing a business case for the recovery of the PSNI police officer numbers."

The Chief Constable went on to welcome and acknowledge the Justice Minister and permanent secretary's support in drawing up the recovery plan, and he signalled his intention to work with them in that regard. There is no demand from the Chief Constable for an apology. Sinn Féin wants to see proper funding for the recovery of police officer numbers, and we will continue to work constructively, collectively and positively with other parties in the Executive and the Assembly in calling on the British Government for proper investment in our public services. I encourage the authors of the motion to do the same.

Northern Ireland has come a great distance since the Good Friday Agreement. An integral part of that process has been the foundation structures put in place regarding our devolved governance and, particularly, our ability to determine and legislate for ourselves and determine our future. A signal step forward in that process was the devolution of policing and justice.

We are all aware that protocols are in place, and nowhere are they more sensitive and important than in policing. There is clear guidance and rules that Departments and Ministers must follow, for good reason, and Members of the House would be the first to criticise if they were breached. No one is more alert to those rules or, indeed, sympathetic to the Chief Constable's concerns than the Justice Minister. She has repeatedly raised the issues with Executive colleagues, the Justice Committee, successive Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers. The systematic raiding of DOJ's coffers, which, in turn, has depleted the PSNI, over the last eight years is the reason why the crisis is here. Other parties that have been in the Executive over that time must take their share of responsibility for the current situation in which justice and policing now finds itself.

The Chief Constable is, of course, free to speak with whomever he chooses. However, the mechanisms for allocating funding, resources and accountability for the police and, indeed, for all arm's-length bodies are clearly set out in the rules and guidance and cannot be circumvented. The Executive will ultimately decide and determine where additional resources are allocated, and, for them, the case for additional funding must be made. On more than one occasion, successive permanent secretaries in DOJ have reminded this Chief Constable of those rules.

The role of the accounting officer has been framed in the most recent letter as an attempt to chastise or gag the Chief Constable by one permanent secretary. That is disingenuous and seeks to sensationalise the routine business of a Department and, most importantly, the responsibility of an accounting officer. It is sad and regrettable but not unsurprising that the correspondence was leaked. Now, it must become a theatrical performance being played out in public and in the Chamber, rather than a genuine attempt to recognise the serious funding situation in which successive Executives have put the DOJ and the PSNI.

I note that the motion frames the letter as an attempt to embarrass. The letter was a private communication. The leaking of the letter was the attempt to embarrass and score cheap political points. We all agree that the PSNI needs additional funding. The Minister has reiterated that on numerous occasions, not just in the House but in her actions and correspondence. The issue of the amount of money that is allocated to DOJ, which, in turn, funds the PSNI, has been raised continually by the Minister, me, as my party's justice spokesperson, and my party colleagues in the Assembly Chamber. When debating the Budget in April, Minister Long outlined the challenges that the Justice Department has: our high prison population and our low police officer numbers, coupled with a forecasted 30% increase in legal aid payments.

When you make the comparison with other Departments, such as Health and Education, both of which have had budgetary increases of 70% and 45% respectively over the past 12 years, and consider that the DOJ budget has increased by only — let this sink in — 3% in the same period, you have to conclude that those parties that absconded from the institutions of government bear the ultimate responsibility for the current situation in which we find ourselves. Our current budget situation has been brought about by 14 years of Tory rule, stripping public services, including the police, to the bare bone, coupled with the gross failure of those parties that brought this place down on more than one occasion. Services and budgets take time to rebuild, and the Chief Constable is well within his rights to ask for more to deliver.

The Minister and her Department are working with the Chief Constable and the PSNI to make the case for increased funding. Indeed, as recently as last Thursday, the Chief Constable said that he wished to draw a line under the matter, yet some in the Chamber still want to make mischief. The Minister has continued to push the Executive and raised all those issues with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. We will see what their Budget produces and whether they will keep their promises.

A more realistic focus for a motion might be to call on the Executive to support a plan for the PSNI recovery that the Minister of Justice is working on. It is regrettable that Members have chosen today to focus on political point-scoring rather than practical solutions.

I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. I suppose that the motion is slightly ironic, given that it is Emergency Services Day. On a day when we acknowledge, respect and honour the service of the PSNI, we are here to address a matter of critical importance to the PSNI. It needs the necessary resources and investment to keep our communities safe and, of course, to allow our police to police.

Chief Constable John Boutcher has made a strong and, of course, legitimate case for additional funding. That is not about bureaucracy; it is purely about protecting people. Our police officers work tirelessly to safeguard our communities, and they need the tools and support to do that effectively. The DUP stands behind the Chief Constable in his leadership efforts during these very difficult times. It was very troubling that the Justice Department had supported efforts to undermine the request for more resources. At a time when the PSNI faces unprecedented pressures, unity is crucial. The Minister should reconsider her stance and restore public confidence by supporting the Chief Constable's call for that funding.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I hear what the Member says about the Minister's responsibility. Will she explain how her party is supporting the PSNI, which she has said, loudly and proudly in the Chamber, it does. What action has her party's Ministers taken in the Executive to deliver that funding for the PSNI?

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you.

Of course, I take that point. The DUP has made it very clear that we are underfunded and need resources. That is the situation, point-blank. We need that. We need continual investment in our Police Service. There is no doubt that every member of my party wants to see that and wants to us funded correctly, purely for the safety of our communities in Northern Ireland.

For years, the PSNI has warned of the impact of that chronic underfunding, but, unfortunately, those warnings have often been ignored. That has resulted in less visible, less responsive policing in Northern Ireland. That situation is neither justifiable nor sustainable, and we need bold action from our leaders and the Department to address all the challenges.

Our police officers who have been injured in the line of duty and forced into ill-health retirement also deserve our full support. It is unacceptable that they face difficulties in receiving their injury on duty award and the retirement benefits that they deserve. Those brave individuals have sacrificed for our safety, and we must ensure that they are treated with respect and care.

I welcome, of course, the Chief Constable's recent announcement that a business case will be developed to recover policing in Northern Ireland. That is an important step forward, but more must be done. We must ensure that the PSNI is fully funded to tackle everyday crime, antisocial behaviour, the ongoing threats, complex preventative work and, of course, engagement. The Chief Constable should be commended for his efforts in his leadership to secure the right resources for effective policing. His advocacy is not only appropriate but necessary, and it is essential that we stand together in support of the PSNI, ensuring that it has the financial firepower that it needs.

The chronic underfunding of policing and public services in Northern Ireland must be addressed. The DUP will continue to press the Government to tackle those challenges, and we urge others to support that crucial message.

As a point of clarity, I highlight the fact that I am also a member of the Policing Board. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue today. I do not think that it is ironic, given the day that is in it, because we should speak about our emergency services and applaud them for their work, so I welcome the opportunity to do so. This is the second time in recent days that we have had the chance to speak on the issue. Indeed, the Chief Constable, as Members pointed out, spoke at the Policing Board last Thursday about the importance of the issue and updated the board on the work that the police are undertaking in conjunction with the Department of Justice. As Members highlighted, he wishes for the false narrative around relationships to just be put to bed.

As a member of the Policing Board who sits on its resources committee alongside many colleagues in the Chamber today, including, in particular, the proposers of the motion, I have heard from the PSNI finance team that the finances are unsustainable and have been for some time, much like those of other public bodies. I respect the fact that all those meetings are held in private session, so it is not easy to hear everything that goes on behind those doors, but one thing that is said time and again is that it is not just the PSNI that faces difficulties but all public bodies. The PSNI team recognises that, but that does not mean that it should not fight for the appropriate resources.

The Department of Justice budget, however, as many Members mentioned, has not been adequately resourced for many years. Thanks to FactCheckNI, which has published a public profile of the Department of Justice budget, everyone can access it to see for themselves that, since 2011 and with inflation, the NI block grant has grown by 52·3% compared with growth of only 12·8% in the Department of Justice's budget. That means that, in real terms, it receives less funding than it did a decade ago. Despite that, as the Minister mentioned at Question Time, the PSNI continues to receive a large chunk of the DOJ grant. Whilst other Departments have seen an increase, the DOJ has faced limitations that directly impact the PSNI's ability to protect and serve. However, those limitations are not specific to the PSNI, and, at Question Time, the Minister outlined the fact that, if you give to one, you must cut from another. Policing is just one element of the justice system. We need to ensure that the entirety of our justice system is adequately resourced.

Unlike the proposers of the motion and the amendments, we are aware of the legal obligations that are placed on the accounting officer of the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable and of the reality of devolution. Let us face it: we know that the letter was not the only correspondence from the only permanent secretary in the only Department to remind people of obligations. However, it is important to work collectively — let us face that — and the Minister has said many times, in response to motions before the House and at Question Time, that we are not adequately resourced. We must also recognise that no Minister here would accept that bodies such as the Education Authority or the Housing Executive are funded separately from the Executive. They are funded through Departments, and that is why working together is so important.

We do not buy the faux outrage today as a result of the leak of the letter, because, if we were to buy —.

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member is the second member of her party to reference the "leaked letter". Is the Member not aware that the letter went to more people than the Chief Constable? Indeed, it went to the chair of the board, which means that it was shared with every independent and political member of the board. It is like one of those letters that went to Uncle Tom Cobley. There is nothing about a leaked letter, and it is wrong to put that into the public domain, given that the letter went to more people than the Chief Constable.

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I recognise that the letter was a "reply all" in the instance in which the Chief Constable initially wrote. I highlight the fact that I do not believe that the media were on the "reply all" list, but I can clarify that later, or perhaps the Minister can. We know that the letter was leaked and the reasons why. It made the DUP, the UUP and, certainly, the SDLP open their eyes to see and put on their listening ears to hear about the resources that the PSNI needs.

In Alliance, we are fully aware of the financial context in which we find ourselves. We know that the block grant is inadequate; we know that the PSNI is not fully resourced, and our Minister has said that time and again. However, when the Executive had more money to spend, they never sought to prioritise policing and justice. Do the DUP and the UUP regret that now?

Furthermore, as a member of the Health Committee for the Alliance Party, I say that the hypocrisy of the UUP on the issue permeates through not just its amendment today but the policy of the previous Minister and current Minister. How many police hours are wasted sitting in A&E with vulnerable patients because those patients cannot get access to mental health services? How many police calls are made by children's homes, parents or caregivers because social services have failed them? How many deaths due to alcohol or substance abuse do the police attend because the health service has let people down, because no UUP or DUP Minister has prioritised that area? How much time and resource is spent by the PSNI on dealing with drugs in a vacuum not of its own making? It is another example of how Health needs to work with the Department of Justice but has failed to do so. We support the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable in their ongoing work to work together to ensure that the PSNI and the entirety of the justice system are fully resourced.

The Member's time is up.

Thank you.

Being a Chief Constable of the PSNI has never been a position for the faint of heart, and that is especially the case at present, although not entirely for the traditional reasons. The service is beset by the perfect storm: poor morale, the lowest numbers in its history and an appalling and unsustainable financial position with services repeatedly cut year-on-year. The harsh truth, which we have acknowledged but perhaps not actioned as much as we might, is that the PSNI has faced unsustainable cuts for many years, and now we — not just "it" but "we" — are at a crisis point, because, if it cannot do its job as a result of cuts of an unprecedented and cumulative scale, it does not merely impact the organisation; it has consequences for our communities, our society and indeed the very safety of our citizens and nation. Neither we nor our neighbours in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland can afford for Northern Ireland to be the weak link in national security or those crimes that cross borders, jurisdictions and county lines.

The Chief Constable came before the Justice Committee earlier in the year, and he was very clear that the situation was unsustainable. He advised that, at that time, the police were handling over 500 calls a month on behalf of the Ambulance Service and were in receipt of 42,000 calls a year about concerns for well-being and safety and that the PSNI has the highest sickness levels in the UK, and that is in the context of the budget for policing in the Republic of Ireland increasing by 25%.

The police are involved in much more than crime, which has also hugely increased in complexity. The service is now increasingly engaged in safeguarding and public protection. Let us remember the financial context: unlike any other police service in the UK, it is not permitted to hold reserves or to borrow money and is expected to plan for the long term on a year-to-year budget. Everything has consequences. Even before this unprecedented crisis, the PSNI had been feeling the effects of the losses. It has tried to absorb as much of the cuts as it can, but now the services are starting to change, and our constituents are noticing. Neighbourhood services have been extensively cut, and prior to that, there was already a dearth of detectives, and I should not have to spell out what that means.

Northern Ireland is one of the top three safest places to live in the UK but for how long, if this continues?

We have rehearsed in here numerous times that there are many in the justice system undertaking the roles of healthcare professionals in order to alleviate the pressures in that sector and that there are many who should be receiving treatment rather than incarceration. Just how far are we from "Right person, right care"? The Committee for Justice plans to conduct a mini inquiry into the extent to which the justice system is being used to alleviate pressures in healthcare.

The Chief Constable is left in the unenviable position of trying to balance his legal and statutory obligations as an accounting officer not to overspend but balance the books with his legal and statutory obligation to keep people safe. With the current budget, it is not possible to do both — something has to give. It is not the first time in recent history that somebody in that role and situation has been reminded of those obligations and to be careful. That brings us to the infamous letter.

I do not know Jon Boutcher extremely well, but I have observed him sufficiently to know that the Chief Constable is a savvy political operator not necessarily parochially in Northern Ireland but across the UK. He knows the protocols well. He is an extremely experienced chief. Therefore, one can only assume and conclude that such is his concern and frustration that he raised the issues at the highest level of government and in the circles in which he mixes. Was that the right way to go about it? Perhaps not. Was it the right and necessary thing to do? Absolutely. What option does he have? Everybody here already knows the situation, and no tangible difference has been made. Where else is he to go but straight to the top? The Prime Minister, as a former human rights adviser to the Policing Board, should still be reasonably au fait with the PSNI and its issues. This is not the time for ego, protocol and procedure. It is absolutely the time for collective voices, using every influence we have, to get the moneys that we need to protect our citizens and deal with those who commit crime.

Public safety in Northern Ireland should be the utmost priority for all concerned. What is it they say about desperate times calling for desperate measures? One could be forgiven for thinking that a few noses are out of joint because the Chief Constable has more and better connections and access than they do. As I said when the matter was first exposed, the financial situation of the PSNI is dire and the consequences severe for wider society and public safety. The Chief Constable would be remiss were he not to raise those issues at the highest level of His Majesty's Government. The letter may have come from the permanent secretary, but the question remains as to whether the Minister stands by it. Other than an assertion of dominance, what is to be achieved by a public admonishment of the Chief Constable?

In conclusion, I am well aware —

Your time is up, Joanne.

— that the PSNI already absorbs 65% of the departmental budget, that every part of the system is struggling and that the Minister has genuinely little room for manoeuvre.

The Member's time is up.

That is all the more reason why collective voices taking the case to Treasury and the PM are essential and to be welcomed.

This is Peter Martin's first opportunity to speak as a private Member. I remind the House that it is convention that an inaugural speech is made without interruption. However, Peter, if you choose to express views that provoke interruption, you are likely to forfeit that protection, so you are warned.

[Laughter.]

That is terrifying.

[Laughter.]

It is scary biscuits. Away you go.

My goodness. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel that you have just taken off my Kevlar, which, perhaps, has some relevance to what we are talking about.

I start my first speech by thanking the Member of Parliament for North Down, Alex Easton, for my place on this Bench. I also wish Alex's wife, Denise, well, as she recuperates in South Africa from unexpected surgery. In all honesty, I do not consider this to be my seat until I win it at an election; of course, that will be up to the people of North Down. My constituents know from their experience that I have a strong work ethic, and I have, hopefully, built up a reasonable reputation as an on-the-ground councillor.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my mum and dad for their constant support and their wisdom for the name that I got at birth. My father and grandfather were both named James Alphonsus Martin, so I narrowly body-swerved being called after Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri, the patron saint of moral theologians. Thankfully, I got simply "James". I thank my wife Melanie, who has had to endure the ups and downs of political life for 14 years, and our three children, Lucy, Sam and Zach. If I did not get their names in, my life will not be worth living when they watch this later. They mean the world to me. Lucy, at 13, is a political animal who can explain the single transferable vote or d'Hondt as well as anyone in the Chamber. Sam, at 11, is a skilled cricketer and rugby player. Our third child, Zach, is best described by a T-shirt that he likes to wear, which simply reads, "Admit it: life would be more boring without me".

It will come as a shock to no one in the Chamber that I am a proud and unashamed unionist, but that solely, in itself, does not define me. I have personal faith in my Lord, who wants me to treat people with dignity, respect and compassion, regardless of their background or political allegiance. I care passionately about the children in this country, and it makes no difference to me whether they are from east or west Belfast. I am concerned about the vulnerable: those struggling to make ends meet at the end of the week; the elderly, who feel increasingly isolated; and, perhaps, the most vulnerable of all in our society — the unborn child — who has no voice.

I turn to the debate in hand. I have had a number of police officers contact me in the past week, and, when the debate was tabled, several more contacted me over the weekend. I have heard from a range of ranks. They have highlighted to me the immense pressure that the service is under, the additional hours that they have to work and the stress that that puts on them and their families. They have said to me that they have been appalled at this political debacle that has unfolded over the past number of weeks.

It was a simple series of events. The Chief Constable wrote directly to the Prime Minister for additional financial resources, and we have talked about it this afternoon already. My colleague said that that was maybe not the procedural way to do things, but it has certainly engendered some debate and discussion about PSNI funding. That then prompted the permanent secretary in the Department of Justice to write a letter admonishing the Chief Constable or, to use the words of the Police Federation — the body that represents the rank-and-file police officers that we have been talking about in the Chamber — to "gag" and "embarrass" the Chief Constable. I do not know the Chief Constable, but, from what I have learned about him over the past few weeks, I suspect that he is not easily gagged, and more power to him, because he has the welfare of the people who serve and protect all of us in the Chamber and anyone who happens to be watching this live feed.

I am not going to talk about the macro issues of the Budget. Mr Dickson talked about the accounting officer and accountable officer. During Question Time, the Minister answered a question from me about funding and mentioned that, if we in the Chamber got the money, it would go to the Executive; it would not go directly to the PSNI. Do you know what? That is probably true. However, Treasury could ring-fence that money, and the Executive would have to take cognisance of Treasury's — I see the Member shaking his head — ring fencing of the money.

That is not really what concerns the police officers whom I have spoken to. One said to me, "If Justice actually got the money, would it send it back? Say the Chief Constable had been successful in getting the additional funding, what would Justice have done?".

Peter, your time is up.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your lenience and the Kevlar.

You are more than welcome. The next Member to speak is another Peter — Peter McReynolds.

It is not. I call Eóin Tennyson.

I want to make a number of observations about the debate that has taken place this afternoon, because this is an important issue. Policing and justice funding is something about which this party has been raising the alarm for many years, if not beyond a decade. The first observation is the number of Members who have either misunderstood or, more likely, seem to wilfully misrepresent policies around managing public money and the role of an accounting officer, which is one of the few roles that a permanent secretary has that sits outside political direction and control. In any organisation, a healthy tension between accounting officers is necessary to ensure good governance. It will, therefore, be custom and practice in every Department to have debates with their arm's-length bodies around the management of public money and protocols and rules of engagement. Indeed, if a Minister acts in a way that is counter to the policies set out in 'Managing Public Money', it is the permanent secretary who will rebuke the Minister. The idea that this is a political issue fundamentally misrepresents the issue at hand and, more than that, is dangerous. The protocols are in place and the roles of accounting officers exist in order to ensure good governance. When we start to politicise those in a disingenuous way, it erodes trust in not only the institutions but our ability to deliver that good governance. That attitude explains the cavalier approach to cost controls and the management of public money that we have seen from parties in the Chamber in the past.

It is also important that we reflect on how we got here, because the funding challenges did not emerge over the summer or fall from the sky. Some of us have been warning about them for years. Westminster austerity has been mentioned, and that is correct. Public services have been underfunded by Westminster, but I will take no lectures on that from those who not only propped up the Conservative Government but championed some of their most destructive policies.

It is true that our public services have been starved due to Northern Ireland's being funded below relative need. It was this party in December that made the argument that the Fiscal Council's assessment did not adequately take account of policing and justice spend. When we reflect on why policing and justice has been squeezed since ring-fencing ended — for the Member's information, justice spend was ring-fenced after devolution for five years — we see that, since then, it was not the Alliance Party but successive Executives led by the DUP and Sinn Féin who squeezed the justice budget, despite our warnings, because we were a small party in the Executive at that time. You cannot now come crying to the Chamber about the inevitable consequences of your actions.

To give credit where it is due, the current Finance Minister recognised and sought to rectify in the most recent Budget the scarring impact that underinvestment in justice has had. The Ulster Unionist Party, however, railed against it and said that all the additional money that had become available should have gone to health, in which case policing and justice would have been in an even worse position.

Let us get real about this: politics is about choices and priorities. It is about actions, not words. It is all well and good to come to the Chamber and decry a letter that has been sensationalised in order to cover your own blushes when we are in a situation that is entirely of your making. I commend the Justice Minister for the work that she has been doing behind the scenes and wish her and the Chief Constable well in securing the additional resource needed for our Police Service. I look forward to unanimous support from every party in the Chamber when those bids come forward in monitoring rounds and in the next Budget.

As this is Timothy Gaston's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that the convention is that an inaugural speech is made without interruption. However, if you choose to express views that may provoke an interruption, you are likely to forfeit that protection.

Certainly, I will take the opportunity in my maiden speech to highlight two seismic events that have taken place in my constituency of North Antrim since the Assembly last sat in July. Our tourism pull has been greatly strengthened after the hidden jewel of Gracehill's Moravian settlement was awarded UNESCO world heritage status, joining the Giant's Causeway in being awarded that prestigious title. I pay tribute to Dr David Johnston and the Gracehill Trust. Their vision and years of dedication and work towards preserving and restoring the 1759 Moravian settlement has led to that historic award for the village.

I turn to my predecessor: the new honourable Member of Parliament for North Antrim, Mr Jim Allister, the "dead-end unionist" who brought 54 years of the Paisley dynasty in North Antrim to an end and a man of principle who stood the test of time and has been dead right in his analysis of the sinking sand on which Stormont is built and the dangers of the protocol. Whilst many in the Chamber will not want to admit it publicly, Jim leaves the House a poorer place. He will be missed for his attention to detail and the level of scrutiny he has brought to the Chamber since first being elected in 2011. Yes, it is a daunting vacancy to fill, but I take refuge in and rely on the verse:

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

That is where my faith will remain.

The motion raises a number of important questions for the Justice Minister. Chief among them is why, when questioned by any Member about any aspect of the PSNI, the Minister decrees that it is an operational matter and that the question should be directed to the Chief Constable. Yet, when the Chief Constable takes the case for funding for the PSNI to the head of the UK Government, he is reprimanded by the most senior official in the Minister's Department. Does the Minister agree with what her permanent secretary wrote? We are looking for a simple yes or no answer.

Before coming to the House, I served for five years on my local PCSP, and I know all too well about the pressures that the policing budget is under. I hear the frustration of many constituents who tell me that they cannot get police officers when they need them. Likewise, I hear the frustration from PSNI officers who simply do not have the resources to deliver the service that they want to be able to offer the public and that the public rightly demand. Throughout my time as a councillor, I worked closely with the police on many issues. Indeed, I frequently raised the issue of rural crime, which is a blight and a scourge on many of our communities.

I would be failing in my duty as a public representative if I did not take this opportunity to highlight the fact that there are a number of things that the PSNI spends its money on that, I believe, are not prudent. I think, for example, of the LGBT+ Network that receives funding from the PSNI budget. Staggeringly, the network has been permitted to use the police's internal email system to promote revision classes, notes and interview preparation for promotions that are available only to officers who identify as LGBT+. Unsurprisingly, when asked about that, the Equality Commission reminded us that it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against its employees on the grounds of sexual orientation. I welcome the fact that the PSNI found reverse gear on the issue, albeit only after it came under pressure.

Also, the PSNI needs to be mindful that continuing to pander to certain groups is increasingly creating a crisis of confidence in the unionist/loyalist community towards the police. I suspect that there will be those in the House who will not want to hear this, but it is nonetheless true that it is inconceivable that a PSNI officer would fly a Union flag or an Orange standard out the window of their squad car. Yet, when that happened with a GAA flag, it was not only excused but positively welcomed by some in the Chamber. A PSNI squad car cannot perform doughnuts in the road while using the siren inappropriately and waving a divisive flag out the window one day without undermining the authority of officers to pull over a young lad for similar driving offences the next.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

There is nothing divisive about an Armagh flag.

The Member has an extra minute.

That is the Member's personal view. Members from the unionist community have a different take on that, Mr McNulty.

We all want to see the chronic underfunding of the PSNI addressed, but my party and I also want to see the police putting their current resources to better use, as well as addressing, as a matter of urgency, the crisis in confidence that widely exists.

We desperately need to invest in our health service, hospitals, GP services, mental health provision, and drug addiction and rehab services. We need to invest in schools to provide pupils with the best opportunities and to improve the lives of so many young people affected by educational underachievement. We need to invest in our welfare system to overturn the two-child tax limit and other cruel welfare reforms that have condemned so many to a life of poverty. We need to invest in public and community services across the board to provide people with a better standard of living. We need to invest in housing and to end homelessness. We need to invest in workers' wages, tax the rich and redistribute the vast wealth in our society in order to eradicate poverty, social alienation and the destitution forced on so many by this Government.

Crime emerges from those social problems. Desperate want causes mental ill health. Poverty and inequality cause people to steal. Deprivation leads to violence. It is under the crushing economic policies of Stormont and Westminster that sectarianism and the racist violence witnessed in recent weeks grow and fester as working-class people turn on one another over the failures of the state. Lack of income and lack of access to housing, healthcare and the basic necessities of life are the problems, and we cannot police our way out of them.

There are no prizes for guessing why Executive parties seem more concerned about policing resources than fixing the problems from which crime grows. It is because the Government feel that it is easier and cheaper to police working-class communities than to deal with the social ills that they face. In communities where one in five children lives in poverty, it is easier for the PSNI to stop and search people and to intimidate, harass and police them than it is for the Government to grasp why it has to be this way. Poverty, lack of opportunity, alienation and crime are not inevitable, but throwing more resources at the police is definitely not the answer. That is why I will not be supporting the motion.

The problem goes much deeper. If we are talking about additional resources, we should ask what those resources are for and who exactly will be policed as a result. If we look at the record of the PSNI, we will have our answer. It is a police force that is rife with misogyny, with one report citing widespread misconduct, including sexual predation, misogyny, domestic abuse and the use of misogyny in social media groups. The same PSNI has actively discriminated against black and ethnic minority communities and attempted to criminalise the Black Lives Matter movement. It is the same institutionally racist police force that reports migrants who are victims of crimes, including domestic abuse, to the Home Office.

It refused to act appropriately on racist violence, allowing far-right thugs to rampage in south Belfast, and then had the gall to tell us that loyalist paramilitaries, under the guise of community leaders, have a role to play in stopping racism. Amnesty International, one of the world's leading human-rights organisations, tells us that people from ethnic minority communities are almost twice as likely to be stopped and searched by the PSNI. Think about that for a second: twice as likely. In 2022, Amnesty International reported that Irish Travellers were the ethnic group most targeted for stop-and-search. In 2021, journalists from "The Detail" revealed that, over a five-year period, the PSNI stopped and searched twice as many Catholics as it did working-class people from a Protestant background. That is the two-tier policing that is worth talking about, but sure throw more money at the problem anyway.

Not only does the PSNI risk the safety of young people through the use of child informants, it continues the horrendous practice of strip-searching children. Last year, we heard that 27 children were strip-searched in 2021. For those who do not know what that entails, those children were arrested and asked to remove their clothes by the police, with just one child being accompanied by an appropriate adult. What was found as a result of those blatant abuses of children's rights? In 24 of 27 cases, nothing, zero, zilch.

Will the Member give way?

I will, yes.

The Member is scathing of the police. If he is in trouble tonight and rings 999, who will he ask for?

The Member has an extra minute.

Well, it depends what the problem is. The Member needs to clarify his example.

It is funny that the Member's party always talks about protecting children, often under the guise of undermining relationships and sexuality education (RSE), but when it comes to stopping and searching and harassing young people and the police's use of powers on young people, there is, unsurprisingly, not a word.

To continue, one search uncovered a mobile phone and two a small quantity of drugs. When it comes to investigating the most serious crimes, such as murder by the state and its paramilitary proxies, the PSNI has been to the fore in denying families justice and covering up Troubles-related crimes that were carried out by its predecessor organisation.

I will also not vote for any motion that commits more resources to a force that continues to fire plastic bullets at working-class children, be they in Sandy Row, the Ormeau, the Falls or the Shankill. Again, there is nothing from the party next to me when it comes to protecting those children and young people.

The PSNI has serious problems, but resourcing is nowhere near the worst of them. It has problems with misogyny, racism, sectarianism, state violence and the heavy policing of working-class communities. Instead of committing more resources to the police, we should commit them to improving the lives of oppressed people who find themselves in an inescapable cycle of crime thanks to the policies of this Executive and previous and current Westminster Governments.

The Minister of Justice will respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to be able to address these issues in the House today. As other Members have mentioned, it is Emergency Services Day, or 999 Day as it is, perhaps, better known. I begin by paying tribute to every officer and member of staff who works for the PSNI. From first responders, administrative staff, cleaners and call handlers, each person is playing a role in helping to keep our community safe.

Policing is a difficult and challenging job. We rely on the PSNI to protect us from harm 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they do so at considerable cost to themselves. It is, therefore, truly appalling that police officers, whose job it is to keep people safe, come under attack from rioters who are intent on inciting hatred and terrifying communities. Those people offer nothing to our community, and I condemn their actions unequivocally and am disappointed that not all Members would do so in the terms that I set out.

I take this opportunity to place on record my thanks for their bravery and resilience to those officers who were involved in policing the riots and disorder. A total of 40 police officers were injured as a direct result of that disorder, some quite seriously, and I wish each of them a speedy recovery. It can never be acceptable that the police are subject to such violence, and we cannot become desensitised to its impact on individual officers and their families, on morale in the service and on the delivery of policing in our community. I also pay tribute to the Chief Constable for his strong leadership during that period and to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the judiciary and the courts for their strong response.

Members may be aware of the fact that the additional unfunded costs that were incurred for policing the riots and disorder are in the region of £2·75 million and are in excess of requirements for normal policing operations. Given the level of pressures facing the PSNI and the Department of Justice, those costs are not affordable from within existing budgets. Similarly, the level of financial pressures at block level mean that the Executive are not in a position to provide the funding that is necessary to meet those additional costs. It was, therefore, agreed at an Executive meeting in August that the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Minister of Finance and I are going to write jointly to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seeking the additional funding to cover the PSNI's costs. That letter is now with TEO and DOF colleagues for clearance.

The fundamental issue at the core of the motion is the chronic and long-term underfunding of the justice system. I have been consistent in raising that since first becoming Justice Minister in 2022, following on from previous Justice Ministers, including David Ford, who raised it as early as 2014. As a result of that underfunding, the PSNI is under-resourced and officers and staff are under extraordinary pressure due to falling numbers. While that pressure is significant even when things are calm, it is compounded when there is unrest such as that which we witnessed over recent weeks, especially when that unrest is dispersed across Northern Ireland. Those levels of pressure on policing are unacceptable, and I welcome the work that the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and my officials did to manage the challenge and address stabilisation — a project that we have been engaged in consistently since my return to office.

The motion asks that I, as Justice Minister:

"recommit to reversing the decline in police funding and police officer numbers".

It is a matter of record that I have consistently and robustly raised the underfunding of the entire justice system relative to other Departments with Executive colleagues, successive Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers and in the media. I trust that, given the motion and the various amendments, I can now rely on all parties to commit to properly resourcing policing and justice, because that has simply not been the case to date.

While the total Northern Ireland block grant has increased by 52% in the 13 years up to 2024-25, DOJ has seen only a 13% growth in budget allocation. Health and Education have seen their budget allocations grow by just over 80% and 50% respectively over the same period. In real terms, the Department of Justice's 2024-25 budget is around £326 million below where it would be if it had simply kept pace with inflation. I give credit to my officials, who are being dragged through the mud here today. Had we had that purely inflationary uplift, we would, because of their prudent management of the finances, be within budget every year because we have no overspend, taking in even extraordinary expense.

The position that the PSNI and the wider justice system are now in is a direct result of budgets being continually squeezed over many years and disproportionately when compared with other Departments. Put simply, neither I nor the Chief Constable can spend money that we do not have. Similarly for the Executive: more money for other Department inevitably means less for policing and justice. That is just simple mathematics.

Northern Ireland has failed to keep pace with investment in policing and justice in comparison with elsewhere in the UK. The situation that the PSNI finds itself in is a direct consequence of that. I have also raised the need for more investment with the Secretary of State and Prime Minister on a number of occasions, and I will continue to do so not only for Northern Ireland in general but specifically for policing and justice, where, I believe, there is an inherent structural weakness at this point.

The Finance Minister, in her engagement with Treasury, has been clear and robust in highlighting the need for further investment in public services across Northern Ireland, and she continues to advocate on behalf of the Executive for the proper funding of our public services. I will support her in her efforts to address that historical imbalance in funding for justice and policing, and I will support the First Minister and deputy First Minister in their endeavours to raise those issues. That we speak with one voice is perhaps the most important thing if we are to have any impact whatever when we deal with Treasury and the Government.

I want to be clear that it is not the case that we are choosing not to allocate additional funding to policing. That funding simply does not exist. In the recent urgent in-year financial exercise, my Department reported total pressures of £275 million to the Department of Finance. That included £45 million for day-to-day stabilisation pressures; £2·75 million for additional unfunded policing costs following recent disorder; and £227 million for exceptional pressures relating to the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and McCloud injury to feelings. Every effort has been made and continues to be made by my Department to reduce the level of those pressures, but that has not been achieved without adversely impacting on the justice system.

In the absence of additional funding being allocated to my Department in the October monitoring round, extremely difficult decisions on prioritisation and service provision will continue to be required to manage the remaining pressures. Any further actions taken by my Department to live within its budget, if implemented, will inevitably result in a slowing-down of the justice system, including the work of my Department on developing new policy and legislation, and that will compromise our ability to preserve life, protect the public and keep people safe. People need to understand that these are literally matters of life and death. This is not an academic exercise. The number of police officers that we have, the amount of time that we can commit to the justice system and the amount of money and resource that we have need to be taken seriously, if people are genuinely concerned about the state of policing and justice.

I fully appreciate the current resourcing pressures faced by the Chief Constable. Police numbers are now at a record low, and that is compounded by high levels of absenteeism that are often due to sickness, stress, injury, long working hours and heavy overtime and can be accompanied by significant numbers of officers on reduced duties. When I was previously Minister, we worked with the Chief Constable and encouraged him to consider recruiting again in 2022. He chose not to do so, as is his choice. We are now in a situation where we need to engage in that recovery process.

One of the priorities in 'New Decade, New Approach' was to increase officer numbers to 7,500, but no additional funding was provided to enable us to realise the whole figure. Indeed, we gained some additional funding, which got us to 7,100 officers, but, because it was not baselined, that immediately fell away after that number had been achieved. It is not that efforts have not been made; it is that they have not been sustained. The figure of 7,500 officers is not a new one. It was noted as far back as the Patten review of policing in 1999, though I caution people because we have to remember that there have been changes in operations in the PSNI. Every officer, as part of a transformation process, has been given a handheld digital device so that they do not have to spend time going back to PSNI headquarters. All sorts of transformation has gone on, and that should put us in a position where the same number of officers can achieve more.

There is also an issue with the upward trend in population that needs to be held against that, so we need to bottom out what the actual figures are. However, it is an academic exercise at this point, because we are so low now that to get anywhere near a figure that would not be controversial will take us at least this mandate. The Chief Constable and I have agreed to put a pin in what the ideal figure should be, work on that in conjunction with officials to bottom that out but focus on how we build recovery into the system right now.

To put it into perspective, as of September 2024, the current service headcount is 6,355 police officers. Police officer numbers are historically low, and, without additional funding, it will not be possible for the PSNI to recover and grow as, I hope, all of us in the House would wish. My officials continue to work closely and constructively with the Chief Constable and his team to build a robust case for the funding required to stabilise policing in the immediate term and to develop a compelling business case to increase police numbers over the next three years. Once that work has been completed, I will make the case to the Executive for additional funding for that purpose, but it will be the Executive who decide whether that business case is funded. It would require a change in legislation and a significant change in practice were we simply to accept the ring-fenced funding, as some suggest, and hypothecation directly from Westminster, because it would entirely tie our hands, make us prioritise exactly the issues prioritised by the Westminster Government and leave us no margin of appreciation in our own decision-making. Decisions on funding allocations are made by the Executive, and I gently remind the UUP and the DUP that they are both members of that Executive. The DUP, in particular, has considerable influence over decisions that are made in the Executive: use that influence where it matters.

While we are working closely with the Chief Constable to stabilise and grow officer numbers, I am acutely aware of the necessity of providing an appropriate pay settlement for serving police officers. I am actively considering the recommendations of the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB). I am on record as saying that it is my desire to implement the recommendations in full, and we are focused on making that case as strongly as possible to the Department of Finance. However, I have recognised that the incremental pay award for police officers is contractual and therefore an inescapable pressure, and, on my return to office this year, I instructed officials to proceed on that basis rather than await the consolidated pay award decision. That means that officers will have that money in their pocket. There is ongoing collaborative work between DOJ officials and PSNI colleagues on the pay remit documentation to secure approval of the incremental element that was commissioned on 31 July. I am pleased to confirm to the House that that was approved on Friday. The PSNI was advised and, hopefully, can now get that money into people's pockets.

The accounting officer letter, of course, has drawn some attention. It is regrettable and disappointing that private correspondence continues to be sensationalised, distracting from the constructive working relationships. Interestingly, it had the same cc list as the Chief Constable's letter, but that did not trigger a round of debate and a media circus around how desperate the police were for numbers. It is only when there is criticism of the Department that anybody in the Chamber seems to wake up to the fact that there is a problem.

The permanent secretary in any Department is the principal accounting officer for that Department. The role carries with it responsibility for ensuring the regularity and propriety of departmental expenditure, for promoting value for money and for ensuring that there are robust systems of corporate governance and financial control in the Department, including living within budgetary controls set by the Assembly. Under devolution, it is for the Assembly and the Executive to make those decisions. Money from the block grant is unhypothecated, and we need to be aware of that. My Department's role in distributing its budget is to allocate the PSNI budget, having regard to its request for resources and the overall financial envelope allocated. Outside routine budget-setting, monitoring and allocation processes, we are commissioning and supporting the development of bids in response to opportunities for additional funding as and when they arise, including for the security element of funding.

As a locally elected representative, I am committed and determined to deliver better outcomes for the people whom I serve and the community in which we all live. As Justice Minister, I have ensured that the vital work of policing and justice has been properly reflected in the Programme for Government, and I am making progress on the revised environmental allowance, police pay and police numbers by working closely with the Chief Constable, his staff and the board. However, I cannot deliver that in isolation. It is not about pitting the PSNI against the Department, the Department against the Executive or even the Executive against Westminster. It is in our collective interests that we have a stable, sustainable and effective Police Service. My focus, as Minister, is on ensuring that we all continue to work together effectively to deliver that for our community.

Policing in Northern Ireland has my full support. I will continue to work with the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and my Executive colleagues to ensure that the PSNI is adequately resourced for the challenges that it faces. I look forward to Members who have taken such an interest at this time continuing to support that work in future.

Thank you. I call Doug Beattie to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Policing is an increasingly complex issue, and we ask more and more of our police force every year with less and less resource. It has been a good and robust debate, and it is right that we have a robust debate. This has certainly not been theatre. I disagree with the Minister in that I do not think that anybody has been dragged through the mud, but I agree with her that this is a life-and-death issue. It is good to have these debates. I thank the Chief Constable for raising the issue, because that is what brought us here.

In winding up on our amendment, I will raise three issues. First, funding and resourcing of the police is not an operational matter but a strategic issue. That is an important point, because failure to understand the difference between strategic and operational matters is where we have a problem. Nobody is arguing that the Minister or other politicians should be involved in the day-to-day running of the police's tasking, routine, logistics or cooperation with other Departments' forces. That is the operational level at which the Policing Board should help the Chief Constable with an oversight and challenge function. However, ensuring that the police have enough funding to resource and plan for long-term outcomes and have the right workforce to achieve those high-level initiatives is the strategic level.

The Assembly is right to scrutinise the Minister. It is important that we scrutinise the Minister. I thank the Minister for coming to respond to the debate. It is right for the Minister to stand up in the Chamber to fight for her police force. I would like to see more of that, to be honest.

The second issue is this: is the Chief Constable right to reach out to the Prime Minister's office for further funding? Of course he is. If he can add value by reaching out to the Prime Minister's office, he should do that. Chief constables across the United Kingdom have the ability to reach into the Prime Minister's office and to inform policy through the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC). Although the PSNI is not a full member of the National Police Chiefs' Council, it contributes to it, and the NPCC speaks to the Prime Minister's office all the time. Instead of castigating the Chief Constable over a letter that he sent to the Prime Minister to raise the profile of an agenda and try to secure funding, we should welcome his initiative in doing so. He is standing up for his force and his rank-and-file officers; I have not heard one voice today that has not done similar, so I think that he is right to do so.

The third issue is the question of where the extra cash will come from. That is an important and a fair question. We voted against the Budget because it is not workable. It is just unworkable: simple as that. I was staggered to find out that the Minister had not engaged with her Chief Constable to say, "This is the likely outcome of a Budget", before agreeing to it. That is the fundamental problem.

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

That is factually inaccurate. Before I signed off on the Budget, I engaged with all the arm's-length bodies of my Department and made it clear that they were likely to face significant pressures. Had I not signed off on the Budget or had we supported the only call that came from the Ulster Unionists, which was to strip funding from every Department and put it into the Department of Health, they would be in an even more parlous situation.

The Member has an extra minute.

Well, that is on record: you said that you engaged with the Chief Constable. That is OK. I was told something different.

By whom?

In saying that, our amendment lays out where that extra cash could come from.

By whom?

Stop heckling.

There is a serious and credible national security threat in the United Kingdom. That is magnified in Northern Ireland, where there are republican terrorists, loyalist paramilitaries, organised crime gangs, the far right and the far left. We have the only open border with the EU, which means that we are at risk of wider, global terrorism.

Will the Member give way?

I am sorry; I have no time.

To that end, a case can be made directly to the Prime Minister's office and the Home Office for more funding to help with national security operations.

We simply cannot allow our Police Service to dwindle any more than it has already. We have 4,500 operational officers who we can put on the streets. That is absolutely pitiful. There are 700 or 800, or maybe more, who are on short-term or long-term sick. Policing is a contact sport; that is the reality. They need resilience. Patten talked about 7,500 officers and 2,500 reserves. Technology means that we could reduce that number, but we are not anywhere close. This is a wake-up call for us to understand the nature of what is happening with our Police Service, and we should all, rightly, support it now.

I call Colin McGrath to wind up on amendment No 1. Colin, you have five minutes.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. It was the hope and intention of the SDLP that, in moving this amendment today, we would try to provide a bit of space for slightly cooler heads to prevail and demonstrate to the public at large, and particularly to the PSNI, that we collectively in here support the work that it does. It has to be a priority for us to have a Police Service that is fit for purpose and has our full support, given the many challenges that it has faced in recent times. Some of the comments that have been made in the debate today may be people's interpretations, rather than necessarily being fully fact-based. The summer recess meant that we did not have the opportunity to address those matters a little bit more quickly, which might have taken some of the heat out of the issues.

I reiterate that we should take the opportunity in this debate to show our collective support for the police, and for those officers who work in some of the most difficult situations with resources that are stretched beyond imagination. Of course, I said that we had that opportunity today, but what we have — I will take this opportunity to have one quick Opposition dig — is a four-party Executive in which one party is criticising another one, another party is amending that criticism, one is not supporting any of the criticisms, and a fourth is having to defend itself to everybody. We are only a few hours after the presentation of the Programme for Government, when we were told that youse all work together greatly.

Will the Member give way?

I am delighted to.

I thank the Opposition for, on this occasion, their constructive approach.

I am going to frame that. Thank you very much.

OK. Colin, you have an extra minute.

As far back as —.

I thank the Member for giving way. Sometimes, there is a spat between the parties in the four-party Executive. This may be against protocol, and I would not want you to be rebuked for it, but maybe there is an opportunity for you, as the sister party of Labour, to raise the issue of finances separately.

We will regularly use any influence that we have to get additional funding here to support our public services. I do not think that we can take any more money off our public services. They are as strained as they can be. We have to do all that we can to try to support the public sector in the work that it does.

As I was saying, as far back as 1999, the Patten report told us that we needed a Police Service complement of 7,500. At the start of this month, there were only 6,298 officers, which is a reduction of 436. That cutback is most evident in community policing. It is difficult to see that, because that is often the public face of policing. It is an opportunity for the public to engage with officers whom they see regularly. The officers build up a relationship with the community, and it is an opportunity to try to break down some of the barriers that there may have been in the past between policing and some communities. If we are left with just response officers, or, by and large, with response officers, we shift the focus from proactive community policing to reactive policing.

Like everyone else in this place, I watched the storm that brewed over the summer. In all honesty, I cannot fathom why the Chief Constable was not allowed to say and do what he did. Did he write an open letter to the newspapers? No. Did he go on to any of our media broadcasters to shine a spotlight on the problem? No. He wrote to the Prime Minister to see whether there was an opportunity for some additional funding for the work that he does. Think about some of the other public bodies that we have. As has been referenced, we have heard from the Housing Executive that there is not enough money for what it does. I think that just about every trust chief executive has been on the airwaves to say that they do not have the funding for the work that they do. I think that every head teacher has said publicly that they do not have the funding to do the work that they do. In this instance, another head of a public organisation was saying that they need to get more money to be able to do the work that they do.

Included somewhere in the debate was — when I reflect on all the contributions, I think that it was there — agreement that we all support policing, that we want to see adequate policing here and that what is important is that we should be supporting that today, collectively. I believe that the aim of our amendment was to cool things. I think that it was constructive opposition, and I hope that, on that basis, we might receive cross-party support for it.

I call Trevor Clarke to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Trevor, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone who took part in the debate today. I think that everyone's contributions — almost everyone's — have been well mannered and reasonable. I will give a summary of what some Members said, and I think that there has been a general theme.

My party colleague from Mid Ulster kicked off the debate. He talked about the concerns in policing and the necessity for a fair and equitable budget. No one, including the Minister, will disagree with that, but the thrust of the motion is about how we got here. When Jon Boutcher wrote the said letter, he probably did not realise that it would get as much attention as this. Today's debate, however, has been useful in enabling us to thrash that out and keep in people's minds the importance and necessity of having a properly funded police service. I appreciate what the Minister said about having tried to do that and not always getting the support, but, for us, it is about how it looks for the Department of Justice to rebuke the Chief Constable for sending the letter.

Mr Buchanan was followed by the Member for Foyle, who also understood the need for a fairer and more balanced budget. Again, no one would disagree with that. The Member for North Down Mr Chambers reminded us about Patten and the numbers that were envisaged back then. Indeed, the conversation about numbers continued right up to New Decade, New Approach, but, of course, many people rushed back here without our being adequately funded directly after New Decade, New Approach. Whilst the two Governments of the time decided on the number of police that we should have, they, of course, did not adequately fund that. Many people were mad to get back here and saw ways of fixing that, but nothing has changed.

The Member for North Belfast followed, and he reminded us again of the numbers and the need to consider how we address that. He referred to how many of us saw the attempt from the Department to gag the Chief Constable. Referenced already today were the contacts that the Chief Constable has and how he will use them. I think that that is useful. I accept that the Minister has made her calls at the Executive. I take that at face value and respect it. However, there are occasions when people know other people, and we should never waste that opportunity in trying to bring these things to a conclusion.

The Member for East Antrim Mr Dickson was, dare I say, very defensive of the Minister, as usual, and I will park that one there. He was followed by my other colleague from East Antrim, and she was the first to mention the importance and significance of today for the emergency services. Indeed, the Minister acknowledged that in her contribution as well. Sometimes, we forget the role that all the emergency services play and what they do in serving our communities.

The Member for North Belfast and my colleague on the Policing Board was defensive of the Minister and reminded us of our obligations. Of course, the letter reminded Mr Boutcher of his obligations, and that is what got us here. Sometimes, we need to be careful about language, about how we rebuke people and about how we explain things. We all have an appreciation of the difficulties of policing, but, sometimes, the language that we choose to use can cause difficulties.

Joanne Bunting, my colleague from East Belfast, talked about unsustainable cuts. No one disagrees with that, bar one Member in the corner, although the less said about that, the better. The Chief Constable's approach has been different, but he has been in position for almost 12 months now. We have all been aware of these issues for 12 months, and it is interesting that it is only because it has got to this stage that we are now getting a plan together to try to address the funding issue. It is concerning that it has taken so long.

Will the Member give way?

I will, yes.

You sit on the resources committee, and there have been many times over the past 12 months when there has been recognition, on both my part and on your part, that more work was needed in the PSNI, do you take back your comments that recognised that there was still more work to be done regarding the PSNI's finances and any business case coming forward to the Department?

As you said earlier, those were private meetings, so I do not want to say too much. You are right about how the Policing Board has approached that, but maybe a letter about the business case would have been more prudent than rebuking the Chief Constable for his letter in which he took the opportunity to use his offices. Not only did he write to the Prime Minister, he publicly met the Prime Minister.

I commend my colleague from North Down for his maiden speech. I also thank his mother and father: I am very glad that they did not give him that other name as I could not pronounce it.

[Laughter.]

He referred to his children and told us all about their interests. Maybe some of them should consider being a toolmaker because it seems to be the matter of the day in the Labour Party, and the Prime Minister reminds us of that quite frequently.

I was very disappointed by the Member for Upper Bann. He was nearly giving us all a lecture on how public finances work. We are all very aware of the public finances, but dire circumstances do not require dire responses. No one underestimates what your Minister has done to try to address the underfunding in policing, but, clearly, within the constrained finances that the Executive have, it has not worked. I thank the current Chief Constable for making that call because it has brought the debate on the matter to the place where it is today. It has also concentrated minds on whether he or others have missed an opportunity in how they have approached the issue. Now, at least, they have taken the opportunity.

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member is effectively saying that the saga has been a wake-up call, and it has, but it has only been a wake-up call for those of you who have been asleep at the wheel. I make no apologies for reminding you of that.

I make no apology for coming straight back at you. It was this party and this party alone that made the call to the British Government for additional funding. Many of you wanted to come back here much sooner with no additional resources.

[Interruption.]

I can see you shaking your heads, but ours was the only party that said that. We wanted more than we got, and many of you said, "No, let us get back in there. We can fight from the inside, and we will get sustainable government from there". Clearly, that did not work, and I make no apology for reminding the Member of that.

The debate has been good hearted. The crux of the matter, and I have heard this across the Chamber, is that we will support the calls for the Chief Constable to get the support that he requires. The Member for Upper Bann Mr Beattie referred to the number of active police officers being as low as 4,500. Many of them are working under real pressures, with so many colleagues off sick or sustaining injuries on duty. It is an awful situation when the Chief Constable has to call for mutual aid from Scotland to help, as he did a few weeks ago, to give officers some time to recharge their batteries and get back out there.

One thing that we always forget when we see police officers under so much pressure is that they all have families at home who are worried when they are doing a normal job. However, when those people are working round the clock on long shifts, day after day, we are burning them out. The only way to address that is to get adequate funding. For those reasons and those reasons alone, I will never apologise for supporting the Chief Constable in his efforts to make sure that policing is adequately supported. I look forward to seeing who supports the motion today.

Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if amendment No 1 is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly supports the Chief Constable in his campaign to secure additional resources for the PSNI; notes with growing concern the serious pressures facing local and neighbourhood policing, crime investigations and rank-and-file officers as a result of chronic underfunding; highlights that the Chief Constable and his officers have a statutory responsibility to protect life and property, preserve law and order and prevent the commission of offences; strongly disagrees with any rebuke about the approach of the Chief Constable to the Prime Minister; re-endorses the recommendation in the Patten report that the number of full-time police officers should be 7,500, with the ambition of increasing that number further; endorses the Chief Constable's assessment that, since 2010, the policing budget has experienced a fall in real terms of 29%; and calls on the Minister of Justice, the Executive and the British Government to work with the NI Policing Board and the PSNI to urgently provide the funding to comprehensively address these structural deficits in the 2024-25 financial year and the subsequent years of this Assembly mandate.