Debate contribution: Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 4841608
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will come on to engagement with paramilitary-linked groups later. When we look back at the past conduct of the Alliance Party, you may say that it was done for the right reasons, but others will see hypocrisy in your position now. Let me be clear: paramilitaries have no place in our society. The Democratic Unionist Party is clear that members of those groups who are engaged in criminality, intimidation, oppressing their communities and all the other examples that we have heard should not just stop but should leave the scene entirely. They provide a seedbed for criminality and are a negative role model for our young people who have many positive opportunities ahead of them in life. There is consensus across the Chamber that paramilitaries must go away. However, as we have heard, there is a diverse range of views on how the same can and should be achieved. The DUP is extremely mindful of how such proposals around group transition impact on victims who have suffered at the hands of terrorists in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are mindful that tomorrow is the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism and also of the poignant event that was held in the Senate Chamber this morning. There are those in our ranks who live with the scars of past terrorism each and every day. It is also the case, however, that there is a range of views among victims and survivors on the way forward. It is clear that simply wishing that the paramilitaries and the organised crime gangs that operate in that space did not exist has not worked. Therefore, we see merit in the Government's decision to act on the Independent Reporting Commission's recommendation that an independent and time-bound exercise should be taken forward to scope out the potential and explore what might be involved in a process of group transition. Let us give the independent expert who is appointed the time and space to conduct their work. Crucially, part of the scoping exercise will be to gauge levels of support for such a process, and we expect it to capture the appetite for engagement not just of paramilitary organisations but of those who are impacted on or victimised by their unacceptable activities. We do not agree with the Alliance Party's response to dismiss out of hand the suggestion of exploring the potential for transition. The Alliance Party has rightly been accused of hypocrisy in refusing to countenance any engagement now with the paramilitary-linked groups that it was very content to engage and align with at the time of the Belfast Agreement vote. We are clear that the concept of transition —
— whether applicable to an individual or an organisation, can only occur where that individual or organisation is fully committed to leaving their past behind. That is a voluntary act that requires their cooperation. It is admittedly an uncomfortable reality, but the Justice Minister cannot close her eyes to it. We have previously said that de-proscription must not be considered for organisations that are still involved in criminality and that continue to blight their communities. Otherwise, it is a blunt instrument. Any proposals for de-proscription or group transition will ultimately have to be underpinned by a monitoring mechanism, which is capable of giving an honest appraisal of the group's activities. The IRC recommends appointing an independent expert to assess the potential for transition — that is the extent of the proposal — in its seventh report. It is worth progressing that in the interest of ending paramilitarism in Northern Ireland.
595 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: 0.19 (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 (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.66).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.19 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.32 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.