Debate contribution: Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 10 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

10 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4841686

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning, I had the privilege of hosting the European Day for Victims of Crime 2025 event in the Senate Chamber. We heard testimony from Pamela Wilson, whose father was an RUC officer murdered by the IRA on his son's eighth birthday. He also left behind a 10-year-old daughter and an eight-month-old baby girl. We also heard from Colette Murray, whose brother, Cyril, was shot dead by loyalist terrorists on 8 July 1992. I was honoured to introduce Caroline D'Eath whose father, Gerald, was murdered by the UVF while he was working on the building site of a new Christian Brothers school in 1975. I was also privileged to meet David McCaughey, whose cousin Dougald McCaughey was one of three off-duty Scottish soldiers who were lured from a city-centre bar in Belfast, driven to a remote location and shot. I was glad to see colleagues from the Alliance Party in attendance this morning. I asked them to reflect, in light of what they heard, on the simple question: is it right or moral to draw a distinction between paramilitaries before and after the Belfast Agreement? Surely, on reflection, you will agree that, while there is no justification for the existence of terrorist groups that inflict so much suffering on all sections of society, there was also no need for them 25, 35 or even 45 years ago. In its motion, the Alliance Party should have gone further. In failing to do so, it plays into the disgraceful "no alternative" narrative from some in this House. When my party leader addressed in the Commons the issue of a scoping exercise, he characterised it as a nursemaid for paramilitaries. I agree with his assessment. It is quite clear that the end point of such a process is the de-proscription of terror groups proposed by the Independent Reporting Commission. Such a move would result in the sickening spectacle of wicked murder gangs being able to openly glorify and celebrate their depraved exploits. That is somewhere that none of us should want to go. While agreeing with the assessment of the Alliance Party, insofar as it goes, I have to point out the irony of it bringing a motion like this before the House whilst serving in an Executive alongside Sinn Féin, the party of no alternative. Does anyone remember why the Independent Reporting Commission exists? It was formed in 2015 after a paramilitary assessment by the Government in the aftermath of the Provisional IRA murder of Kevin McGuigan. That assessment stated that the Provisional IRA retained an army council that oversaw the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin with an overarching strategy. It retained departments with specific responsibilities and weapons that had not been decommissioned. If you believe that paramilitaries have no place in Northern Ireland, what are you doing in a coalition with a party overseen by the so-called army council of the most murderous terrorist group in western Europe? Whether you like it or not, the Chamber and these institutions operate under what Seán O'Casey would describe as 'The Shadow of a Gunman'. One of the testimonies that we heard this morning was from Colette Murray. As I said, her brother was murdered by the UVF. Unlike many victims, Colette saw men stand trial for that murder. Two individuals were later convicted and sentenced, but, as a result of the immoral Belfast Agreement, they served only a minimum of four years and a maximum of eight years for their heinous crimes. If you use the Belfast Agreement as a yardstick by which things should be judged, you are only ever going to go further down the moral sewer when it comes to paramilitaries. Whilst I have concerns about where the substantive motion has come from, I will vote for it. I certainly will not vote for any of the amendments.

645 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution is part of a debate on paramilitary transition. It argues against any distinction between pre- and post-Agreement paramilitaries and against de-proscription, citing victims of both IRA and loyalist violence even-handedly. The sharpest passages attack Sinn Féin as "the party of no alternative" linked to an "army council", and call the Belfast Agreement "immoral". These rest on a published 2015 government assessment and target a party's alleged paramilitary links rather than a community as a whole, which the rubric treats as criticism of a party's record.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main thrust deals with the substance of the motion: whether paramilitary groups should have any place, the risks of a scoping exercise leading to de-proscription, and sentences under early release. It condemns loyalist and republican violence alike and does not frame the issue as one community against another. The pointed partisan jibes at coalition partners and the denunciation of the Agreement add a substantial element of point-scoring, so the record is mixed rather than purely public-interest.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:07 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