Debate contribution: Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on 10 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Stewart Dickson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4841550

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

We are here to discuss an issue that should have been consigned to history a long time ago. More than a quarter of a century after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland should be free from the shadow of paramilitarism. It should be free from the fear and intimidation that paramilitary groups inflict, free from the control that they exert over communities and free from the crime and violence that they continue to perpetrate.

Instead, we find ourselves once again debating their existence, their influence and the deeply flawed suggestion that they must somehow be coaxed into disbandment.

That the UK and Irish Governments propose appointing an independent expert to engage with paramilitary groups in an effort to explore their so-called transition is nothing less than shameful. Let us be absolutely clear: that is the wrong approach. It is an insult to the victims of those criminal gangs, who suffer from their drug dealing, loan sharking, child abuse and prostitution; it is an affront to justice; it lends credibility to those who have spent decades refusing to relinquish their hold on our society; and, most of all, it fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. Criminal gang paramilitary groups do not exist because they lack a pathway to transition, and they do not persist because they are waiting for the right deal, the right offer or the right inducement. Let me be clear: they continue to operate because they choose to. Their leaders profit from extortion, drug dealing and organised crime, and they hold communities in their grip through fear and coercion. Instead of dismantling their structures, too often they have been permitted to evolve their criminal empires, still carrying the trappings of the past, including their murals, which intimidate. They invoke a warped legitimacy that they do not and never did deserve. There is no compelling barrier to disbandment other than their refusal to leave the stage. To encourage paramilitary groups with meetings feeds and endows them with a credibility that they do not deserve. They have had decades of political and economic cajoling and social transformation to step away, move on or let go, yet they continue to exert control over the present. They exploit young people and groom them into criminality: that is nothing short of child abuse. They exploit poverty and deprivation and entrench their influence; they prey on businesses through intimidation and protection rackets; they poison our streets with drugs; and they trade in fear and violence. At every turn, they justify their existence with a hollow pretence that, somehow, they are protectors when, in reality, they are nothing more than organised criminal gangs. Why, after all these years, is there a willingness in some quarters to treat paramilitaries as something different from what they are? The idea that an official, funded, government-sanctioned process is required to explore their future only reinforces the dangerous notion that they have a future at all. The only future that they should have is one in which they disband immediately, without negotiation, and face justice for their criminality. The Executive's programme on paramilitarism and organised crime has made progress in tackling the issues, exposing the hidden harms, disrupting operations and ensuring that future generations are not drawn into the same cycles of coercion and criminality. In my view — the Alliance Party's view — that is the correct approach. It is based on law enforcement, community resilience and shining a light into the dark corners of the reality of paramilitary control, rather than pandering to their demands. The funding allocated to the scoping exercise must be redirected to where it is actually needed: supporting communities to break free from the grip of paramilitarism and ensuring that every individual who wants to leave behind a life of violence has access to the legitimate support structures that they need, not under the supervision of the very groups that exploit them but through independent and trusted organisations that put people before criminal interests, organisations such as Christians Against Poverty, which operates in my constituency, working with those caught in the trap of criminal gang moneylending. We must call out hypocrisy where we see it. Time and time again, we hear condemnation of paramilitary influences from those in power, yet we see decisions being made to legitimise their presence. We see money funnelled into projects where the very groups that cause the harm are invited to take the lead and to sit at the table to, supposedly, fix it. We see Ministers and some Members of the House sit down with representatives of those groups. We see shared housing developments where quiet agreements are made that certain flags will not be flown, not because of a genuine commitment to shared communities and peacebuilding but because a deal has been struck in the background with those who believe that they have the right to dictate the terms of community life. In my constituency, we see cases such as that of Glenn Quinn, from my home town of Carrickfergus, who was murdered in his home. His family were left grieving, and those responsible still walk the streets. How can we tell victims' families that it is the right approach to engage with the very groups that inflict such harm? Today, the Assembly must send a strong and united message. That is why we ask the House to support the motion. While the amendments have their benefits, they nevertheless invite us to indicate to the two Governments that we could maybe say, "Give it a go". No — it is over. No more treating those groups as anything other than what they are. The motion is about reaffirming a principle and ensuring that no Government, no political leader and no institution lends credibility to those who seek to control communities through fear and criminality. It is about standing up for the rule of law, for victims and for a society that has suffered far too long under the weight of such gangs. The United Kingdom Government do not need to appoint a go-between to tell paramilitary groups that they should disband; they simply need to tell them in no uncertain terms that they must disband. The Government must ensure that resources are given to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and they must ensure that those who refuse to disband are met with the strongest possible response from law enforcement. Anything less would be a betrayal of the progress that we have made. I urge the Assembly to back the motion, to reject the dangerous proposal that is being put forward and to stand firmly and unequivocally against paramilitary influence in any form. That is not a matter for negotiation. It is about justice, security and the right of every citizen in Northern Ireland to live free from the shadow of such groups. Shame on the Irish and United Kingdom Governments for contemplating anything other than enforcing the law.

1,156 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:06 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