Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

That is very kind of you, Sir. Roger. I had not planned on such a courtesy being extended. I place on record my appreciation to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. Important debate though it is, it would have had much more importance had the Boundary Commission not taken Garnerville out of my constituency and placed it in his. Indeed, had Garnerville remained in Belfast East, I would have been championing its restoration and renewal rather than the creation of PSNI Redburn in Kinnegar.

As Northern Ireland parliamentarians and Members of this Parliament, this is an important opportunity for us to consider the right way we should invest in policing. Hon. colleagues have mentioned the recent programme “Peelers” as a visual demonstration of the pressure that our police service is under and the frailty of the funding model that they face. Devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland is not the primary concern. The primary concern is a police service that the Minister of Justice, although accountable for it, strips of resource. She then puts that resource into those direct parts of her Department, including the prison service, legal aid, court service and the Northern Ireland judiciary.

No other part of our criminal justice system has faced the same cuts that the PSNI has. Why? Because the PSNI, rightly and politically, is non-departmental. It does not have the same accounting mechanism, and the Minister of Justice does not have the same responsibility for it. In fact, the PSNI is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and not the Minister of Justice. The PSNI has been failed. It has been failed by a Minister who has been ill-prepared to prioritise policing and has prioritised those aspects of her Department for which she is wholly accountable. That is wrong. That has been an injustice and a disservice to the brave members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

On Sunday, I gathered with hundreds of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation at their 24th anniversary service in Armagh. They are proud, determined people—people who sacrifice. Widows were present, as were others who have sacrificed so much of their own lives to ensure peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As they kept the legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary going on Sunday in Armagh, and do so every day of the week, it is incumbent on us, if we are interested in securing a legacy, to ensure the future of the police service in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me the opportunity to make that short contribution. I am full of acknowledgment and praise for the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I acknowledge the deeply troubling incident in north Belfast last night, in which a man was seriously injured in a knife attack on Kinnaird Avenue. My thoughts are with the victim and his family, the members of the public who attempted to stop the attack and the PSNI officers who responded. Those officers are precisely who this debate is about, and we should all be asking whether they have the support, resources and facilities that they deserve.

As we have heard, 25 years ago the Belfast agreement promised a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Out of that promise came the Patten commission, which led to the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting, as many Members have, that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, with day-to-day funding allocated by Stormont’s Department of Justice. This Parliament does not set the PSNI’s budget, but the UK Government are not disinterested observers. Responsibility for national security rests with Westminster: additional security funding and paramilitary crime taskforce funding are channelled from here, and Treasury decisions—including the refusal to meet Stormont’s reserve claim for the £119 million cost of the 2023 data breach—carry direct consequences.

The police college at Garnerville sits at the centre of all this, training every officer who joins the PSNI, and it exports that expertise to forces in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, as well as internationally. Every PSNI officer carries a personal protection firearm, including when they are off-duty—something that applies nowhere else in UK policing, fortunately. The standing authority under Patten recommendation 65 has not been withdrawn because the threat has not gone away. The terrorism threat level was reduced from severe to substantial in March 2024, having been raised to severe following the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh in February 2023. The PSNI recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that there is no operational difference between the two threat levels: the posture, vigilance and resource commitment remain the same. No other policing workforce in the United Kingdom has to weigh the personal security implications for them and their families when simply deciding whether to join the police force.

The latest student officer recruitment figures, released in February this year, underline the scale of the challenge. The 2026 recruitment campaign received more than 4,100 applications, but that was down from more than 4,800 last year. Of those, nearly 27% identified as Catholic, against almost 29% the year before. The current intake runs at 51 student officers per month through Garnerville, barely keeping pace with the number of police leaving at the other end. Each of those officers completes the 22-week programme at a site that Patten identified as inadequate back in 1999. The PSNI told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the continuing terrorist threat, legacy perceptions and resource pressures are active barriers to recruitment from all communities. No training college can resolve those barriers alone, but a modern, accessible facility would at least stop them compounding.

It matters that Patten recommendation 131 remains undelivered. The Desertcreat project—a proposed shared police, fire and prison training facility in County Tyrone—was abandoned after costing more than £12 million without a building completed. As we have heard, the PSNI has since purchased the Kinnegar army base in Holywood, which it acquired from the Ministry of Defence for £4.9 million.

[Gavin Robinson]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, because she is making a good speech with important information. She mentioned Patten recommendation 131 not being prioritised. People sometimes forget, but we should praise the fact that 1,000 members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland wished to apply for 400 vacancies—that is a good and positive thing. However, paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 of the Patten report, which call on political leaders, community leaders, priests, Ministers and all with positions of influence to encourage engagement with, support for and recruitment to the PSNI, have not been honoured. Does she acknowledge that, sadly, far too many people today, particularly in senior positions of public leadership, will not engage with the police, encourage their community to participate with the police, or see policing as the great career of public service that it truly is?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree that it is vital that everyone supports the PSNI and encourages people from across Northern Ireland to engage with it positively. One would hope that a good, modern training centre would help to present it as a good organisation to join.

To develop the site at Kinnegar, investment is needed. Patten recommended a new college 26 years ago, and although the Government accepted that recommendation, the PSNI is still waiting for one. Behind the college’s infrastructure problems sits a deeper funding failure: in real terms, the PSNI has 40% fewer resources than at devolution in 2010. Officer numbers stand at approximately 6,250—the lowest since the service was established—against the Patten recommendation of 7,500, as we have heard. Since 2014, the PSNI has incurred £167 million in legacy costs, with a further £24 million anticipated this year, drawn from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has recommended a dedicated, ringfenced funding stream for legacy obligations, separate from the operational policing budget that the Chief Constable has been asking for.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on counter-terrorism funding. ASF has been broadened to cover the same threat categories as the Home Office counter-terrorism grant, yet that grant reaches £1.2 billion in 2026-27 while ASF stands at £37.8 million. The Government may point to the Barnett formula, but Barnett allocates on population, not on threat. Even combined, Barnett and ASF do not account for a force in which every officer carries a firearm and 3,200 specialist security deployments took place in a single year. Will the Minister confirm whether ASF is allocated based on need or on population share? If it is the latter, do the Government accept that, even combined, Barnett and ASF fall short for a force with no equivalent anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Secondly, on legacy, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will drive legacy costs higher still, and those costs continue to be met from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. Do the Government accept the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s recommendation for a dedicated, ringfenced funding system to meet those costs separately?

Thirdly, on the college itself, Kinnegar has been purchased, but its development depends on investment funding that has not yet been committed. Will the Government make a specific capital commitment to deliver a new police college for a service with training requirements that have no parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

That is funding to the Department of Justice rather than directly to the PSNI but, as I stated, given the hours of police time saved, that investment will clearly have a benefit.

On the matter of funding for the PSNI, many Members rightly raised resources, and a few raised some specifics. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the serious issue of rural crime, which I know that he, the Ulster Farmers Union, the PSNI and many other Members take very seriously. It is not the only factor at play; as he also mentioned, the land border brings with it complexity, and makes the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána very important. That positive relationship is crucial.

I have mentioned the record settlement and the fact that the Executive must make the decision to allocate their resources. Although the PSNI is devolved and operationally independent, as we would expect, the Government remain in close contact with it and the Department of Justice. Powerful points were made. I note that Northern Ireland continues to have the highest number of police officers per head of all nations in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned funding for legacy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). The previous Government put £250 million into funding legacy institutions. In addition, as announced in the joint framework, the Irish Government will contribute €25 million to support legacy mechanisms.

I mentioned the record settlement given by this Government and the increase to the additional security funding. Of course there is a requirement on the PSNI, as there is on many other UK Government Departments and agencies, to disclose information. The PSNI is no longer dealing with the caseload it had before the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Let me add that the Chief Constable has raised the matter directly with the Government. The Government are engaging with him and the PSNI about the resource concerns in relation to disclosure.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and others discussed the numbers and composition of our police; the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may have rung the death knell for my career given his kind words, but I will try to address his concerns. As of 1 June this year, the PSNI has 6,341 full-time-equivalent officers. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low. The Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500, in line with the 2020 “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, is very welcome.

A well-staffed, well-resourced and well-trained PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment in December last year; the Department of Justice got an additional £7 million in Executive funding to meet the full cost of year one of the PSNI’s workforce recovery plan. Apart from national security, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable.

I move on to parading, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Determinations are rightly a matter for the independent Parades Commission, which acts independently of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in that process. Determinations are legally binding, and it is important that all involved in parades and protests adhere to the rule of law and abide by any determinations made by the commission.

As others have said today, we all have a responsibility to respect the rule of law and use temperate language to reduce tensions around sensitive parades and protests. The commission continues to have the full support of the Government in its challenging role in relation to parades in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say. The NIO rarely ever exercises its powers when it comes to the Parades Commission—it can intervene, but it refuses to do so. The fundamental problem that arose on the weekend was that protesters could not adhere to the Parades Commission’s determination because somebody within the police decided, in their policing plan, to ensure that they blocked the very place where the commission said the protest should occur. That is the fundamental problem. If the Minister is to address this issue, as he is doing, he must give some consideration to the inability of lawful protesters to adhere to a lawful determination because of the actions of the PSNI.

[Matthew Patrick]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Securing locally agreed arrangements for managing parades in Northern Ireland is the best option for sustainable, long-term reform. The UK Government are committed to continuing to work with local parties and others to secure the restoration of those institutions. Until such time as alternative, locally agreed arrangements are forthcoming, the Parades Commission remains the only legally constituted body that can adjudicate contentious parades in Northern Ireland. Ensuring that communities in Northern Ireland can peacefully celebrate and demonstrate their culture in an environment of respect and tolerance is of the utmost importance.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.