Debate contribution: Tackling Paramilitarism

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 15 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

15 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Tackling Paramilitarism

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4592518

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thirty years ago this month, the Combined Loyalist Military Command (CLMC) announced its cessation of violence. That announcement came a month and a half after the Provisional IRA had announced its ceasefire. Thirty years is, by any measurement, a long time; it is more than a generation. It is also more than the length of time that those organisations were engaged in armed campaigns. In short, it is more than enough time for those organisations to have finally got off the stage, but, as we know, that has not happened. Our society has been transformed since the 1990s, overwhelmingly for the positive. It is also important to acknowledge that incidents of violence related to what is euphemistically called the "security situation" in Northern Ireland, be those shootings, bombings or other paramilitary-style attacks, have fallen in the past decade according to PSNI data and as published in the reports of the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC). However, such attacks still happen, and, as the shooting of DCI Caldwell showed, there are still some determined to use deadly violence for political ends. Paramilitarism continues to blight too many communities, especially working-class ones. Some say that we should not even use the term "paramilitary" in 2024 because that word confers a kind of political purpose or legitimacy on the organisations. While I see the logic in that argument, it is also important to confront the political influence that those organisations seek to wield and to understand the broader historical context of political violence in Irish history. The use of violence or the threat of violence or the implication of violence at some point in the future has been a constant in political life on this island and especially in the North for, literally, centuries. However, we are not here to enter into debate about the legitimacy of any or every armed campaign going back to the 17th century. Suffice it to say that one of the core purposes of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement was to mark a clear and unambiguous break with what had gone before. Any scintilla of legitimacy that armed groups claimed before 1998 was gone, because anybody who wished to pursue a united Ireland, as I and my party do, had a clear structure and democratic path to achieve that end and anybody who wished to protect the Union with Britain could be assured that the Union was guaranteed to remain for as long as the majority in the North so wished, and governance inside Northern Ireland would be specifically designed to embed inclusion and multiple safeguards for all traditions. To be clear, I and my party never believed that violence before 1998 was legitimate or necessary or is worthy of mythologising — quite the opposite — but we recognised that a political solution to our appalling conflict would need to be as inclusive as possible. Yes, that meant talking to groups and representatives of groups, republican and loyalist, that had been engaged in violence and, indeed, recognising that many of those had a contribution to make to building peace. Opposing violence ultimately necessitated talking to those who were engaged in it, but, in response to some of the pathetic false equivalence thrown up by parties, specifically one party in the Chamber yesterday, let us be clear that this is 2024, not 1994 or 1998. Talking to representatives of armed groups to bring about peace as people were dying is not the same as talking to representatives of armed groups engaged in widespread criminality 30 years on who have no apparent intention of getting off the stage and getting off the backs of communities. Conflating John Hume's role as a peacemaker with indulging armed gangs in 2024 is as stupid as it is offensive. It is a deflection tactic. Let me tackle a few other myths. First, the motion is aimed at challenging persistent and unacceptable paramilitarism wherever it arises. Republican and loyalist paramilitary structures remain in place in different parts of this society. Some still seek political influence, either via acts of violence or other forms of direct or indirect pressure, but most are involved in one form of criminality or another, including drug dealing, racketeering and protection money, where they extract money and power from working-class communities while offering nothing but coercive control in return. The motion is not simply aimed at loyalist paramilitarism; it is aimed at all forms of paramilitarism, republican and loyalist. To avoid any doubt, let me say that it includes displays of what we might call "paramilitary exceptionalism" — the idea that paramilitary structures or former leaders get to play by different rules from everybody else. Yes, for the avoidance of doubt, that includes bringing a republican colour party onto the streets during a deadly pandemic while other people's relatives died and were buried alone. It is also vital to differentiate between communities and paramilitaries: they are not the same thing. That is particularly important for loyalist and unionist working-class communities, many of which I am proud to represent. To be absolutely clear, loyalist communities have pride in their flag. They are proud of their military service for their country and proud of the industrial prowess they helped to build, especially in this city. I have the greatest respect for all those things, which have nothing whatever to do with armed criminal gangs. To conflate the two is offensive to the hard work and service of people in those communities. Those communities, along with other working-class communities, have real needs in relation to housing and education that this place has failed to address for too long. I want better for those communities, but I will not accept that those paramilitaries or their representatives have a say on housing when, according to the most recent Independent Reporting Commission data, nearly 200 households were forced into homelessness because of paramilitaries. Nor will I accept that they should have a say in education or young people's prospects when they continue to profit from a drug trade that ruins young lives and continue to carry out punishment attacks. Just as it was pathetic back in the 80s and 90s to hear representatives who supported economic bombing campaigns complain about unemployment when those groups were tearing apart the economic fabric of towns and cities, so today it is hard to hear certain groups call for much-needed economic development of areas whilst they extract money and well-being from those areas. Indeed, paramilitarism itself costs the NI economy £750 million a year — a figure that is in the Programme for Government.

I will give way.

The Member makes a lot of sense, and, indeed, I will come on to talk about the Programme for Government and why it needs to have more specific targets and aims and why it needs to focus on tackling that cost. The Member makes a good point. What do we do? First, transition must have an end point. The process that is known as "transition" or "transformation" feels sometimes like it has been going on longer than 'The Mousetrap', with the performers refusing to leave the stage. Week after week, we read in tabloid newspapers about the exploits of organisations with daft names, as if they were characters in 'Sesame Street' or 'The Beano'. All the while, they go on inflicting harm on the working-class communities they purport to represent. It does not have to be this way. Our motion calls for a fundamental review of the tackling paramilitarism programme. We want to ensure that every penny and every action is relentlessly focused on ending the scourge of paramilitarism, updating our Programme for Government to include clearer timelines, targets and unambiguous aims — yes, that includes a clear rejection of attempts by organisations, or groups linked to those organisations to influence, without a democratic mandate, the political and policy process. Should those organisations wish to seek to influence the democratic mandate, there is a route to stand for election. They can register with the Electoral Commission, or they can form a body corporate and register with Companies House or the Charity Commission. There are lots of other community groups, including groups involving other former loyalist and republican paramilitaries, that do it in an upfront and transparent way. As I said, our motion calls for a fundamental review of the programme. We need to ensure that every penny is focused on clearly bringing to an end the influence and presence of such organisations and to be clear that every penny spent on the programme is aimed towards that goal. If people were honest with themselves in the Chamber, it would be hard to say that we can justify every penny that is currently being spent on those programmes on the basis of that test. It may also mean encouraging other law enforcement agencies, including HMRC, to work more closely with the PSNI in tackling the proceeds of those paramilitary crime lords. In 1994, we were promised a democratic future. Men — leaders like David Ervine, Gusty Spence and, yes, David Adams — who had pasts but were clear that they wanted to build a future and others promised us that democratic future. Thirty years on, it is time to claim that future. We do not have to accept the abnormal as normal.

In the final months of conflict, awful things happened. In the past couple of weeks, we have been reminded of them with the death of Gina Murray, who fought for justice for her daughter, who was killed in the Shankill bomb. Last Friday night, I was in O'Toole's pub, my uncle's pub in Loughinisland, where victims of that atrocity still have received no justice. We owe it to them and to all those whom we serve now and who will come into this society in future —

— to take the final step —

— and turn the page on paramilitarism —

— and the spectre of the gun.

1,666 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:26 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification