Debate contribution: Tackling Paramilitarism
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 15 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Tackling Paramilitarism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4592548
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I very much welcome today's motion. It is particularly well timed, given the level of public anger about the two separate Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) meetings with DUP Ministers in past weeks. When the LCC was founded almost a decade ago, many hoped that it would be instrumental in facilitating loyalist paramilitaries who wanted to transition away from violence and criminality eventually to leave the stage. It is fair to say, however, that the LCC not only has failed in that regard but has failed to prevent the backsliding of loyalist paramilitaries away from transitioning and into increased activity and criminality in recent years. Whatever was said about it at its founding a decade ago, we can now say with certainty that the LCC has become a mouthpiece for organised criminal gangs that terrorise communities through fear and coercive control. The increased level of activity by loyalist paramilitaries is deeply concerning and needs to stop. The UVF and the UDA regularly engage in intimidating and threatening behaviour against anyone who opposes them. On top of that, their criminal empires are expanding at an alarming rate, with more and more drug dealing and extortion in loyalist areas. The UVF and the UDA are also strongly suspected of orchestrating the race riots during the summer in Belfast, where our migrant communities were attacked and businesses targeted. Loyalist paramilitary groups have no place in our society, and they should have disbanded long ago. It beggars belief that any Minister would think it appropriate to consult such groups on matters of public policy. Instead of shutting down and deplatforming them, the DUP seems intent on rewarding them with unprecedented access to its Ministers. We already know that the LCC lobbied the Education Minister, Paul Givan, to block the establishment of an Irish-medium school in east Belfast. That is completely unacceptable. So far, no information about what was discussed at last week's meeting with the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has been published, despite repeated calls for it to be released. The public have a right to know what was discussed, and, in the interests of transparency and openness, Minister Lyons has a duty to provide that information. He needs to publish the minutes of the meeting with the LCC, along with a list of attendees, as soon as possible. In addition, the Minister needs to come to the House and make a statement detailing exactly what was discussed and, in particular, whether any demands were made by the LCC, and, crucially, his response to any such demands. I thank the Member who tabled the motion.
430 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.17 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.75).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.86).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.23 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.08 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.72 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.24 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.