Written evidence submitted by the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC), relating to the effect of paramilitaries on society in Northern Ireland inquiry (PNI0014)

Introduction

We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute a written submission to the Committee’s inquiry into the effect of paramilitaries on society in Northern Ireland.  We have set out our collective views, conclusions and recommendations in four Reports since our establishment, and have sought to bring together relevant elements of those Reports in this submission to support the Committee in its work. 

Mandate and methodology

The Independent Reporting Commission (IRC) was established to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland by an international treaty[1] between the UK and Irish Governments, under the terms of the Fresh Start Agreement[2] concluded by the two Governments and the Northern Ireland (NI) parties in November 2015.  The IRC’s functions as described in paragraph 5.1 of Section A of the Fresh Start Agreement and Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty (with particular reference to paramilitary groups declared to be on ceasefire) are to:

• report annually, or on such further occasions as jointly requested by the UK Government and Irish Government, on progress towards ending continuing paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland; to report on the progress of implementation of the relevant measures of the three administrations i.e. the UK Government, the Irish Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive; and inform the implementation of the Executive’s strategy;
• make recommendations to the Northern Ireland Executive in order to inform future Programme for Government priorities and commitments; and
• consult with a wide range of stakeholders in carrying out our functions, including: the UK Government and relevant law enforcement agencies; the Irish Government and relevant law enforcement agencies; and in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, statutory agencies, local councils, communities and civic society organisations.

We are not an operational body and do not provide detailed security or threat or status assessments of the various paramilitary groupings.  That is a matter for the police and security services. Our views and conclusions are informed by a range of engagement and work with the community and voluntary sector, government departments, law enforcement agencies, civic society, community groups, individuals, funded projects and funders, political parties and representatives, local Councils and others. 

Fresh Start Agreement and contextual background

It has been our view from the outset of our work as the IRC in 2017 that what makes the Fresh Start Agreement approach to ending paramilitarism, and the initiatives that stemmed from it, different to previous attempts is its comprehensive nature.  Fresh Start, and its resultant initiatives, all make clear that while policing and justice measures are essential in bringing paramilitarism to an end, they are not enough in themselves and need to be situated inside a wider, more holistic approach that includes tackling the deep and systemic socioeconomic issues facing communities, and in particular those communities where paramilitary control is strongest.

We have set out in our Reports how paramilitarism involves a complex landscape comprising different categories of people.  These range from individuals and groups who use paramilitarism as a ‘cloak’ for overt criminality (ranging from extortion, drug dealing, threats, trade in counterfeit goods, money laundering, illegal money lending, sexual exploitation and other illegal activities) which they purport to conduct under a quasi-political guise in the context of NI and its history, to others who get caught up in it for reasons to do with socioeconomic disadvantage.  Some of this is related to the lack of an alternative pathway, to poor educational and employment opportunities, challenges to do with drugs, as well as addiction and mental health, and peer pressure.  There are also “dormant” members who retain some form of affiliation with a group (perhaps willingly, or perhaps because there is not a means to exit the group), who may pay a membership fee, and whilst not presently active in the organisations could be asked to play a role in the future. We consider that there is a further category of those who remain involved in paramilitarism for political and identity reasons which reach back to the Troubles.  There is also a group of people, including at leadership level in some of the groups, who appear to have a positive wish to see paramilitarism ended, but cite a range of reasons why they believe they cannot do so currently including a belief that if they walk away they will leave the field to darker forces. This complex landscape necessitates a multi-faceted approach. 

There are also differing attitudes in communities towards ongoing paramilitarism. Here, too, there is a spectrum. The broadest portion of that spectrum is occupied by those who reject paramilitarism and see its continuation as unacceptable and morally wrong. But within that cohort there are more nuanced views. For some, continuing paramilitarism is seen as purely a matter of criminality and is an issue for law enforcement. That analysis is sincerely held, but as we address elsewhere, paramilitarism cannot be dealt with by policing alone. Others believe that there is a political dimension involved in the continuation of paramilitaries and see it as a legacy of the Troubles.  There are also differing attitudes in the communities where the paramilitaries operate.  Some regard paramilitaries not as outsiders but as ‘part of us, part of who we are.’ And in some cases, paramilitaries are seen as ‘go to’ people, particularly in terms of ‘policing’ local issues arising from anti-social behaviour, including drugs. While this, in our view, is unacceptable, it is the reality of the complex landscape in Northern Ireland.

Another dimension of this complex landscape is the fractured nature of politics in the years since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.  Much of the 23-year period since the Agreement has been characterised by turmoil and turbulence in political life, with several suspensions of the Executive and Assembly, thereby prolonging instability and mitigating against the kind of sustained, cross-party policy interventions and approaches that are needed to address the range of factors involved in continued paramilitarism.  That is why the more comprehensive and holistic approach heralded by the Fresh Start Agreement is so important.  The years since that Agreement in November 2015 have themselves been characterised by turbulence and instability at the political level, something which has undoubtedly affected the pace of implementation.  Despite that, the new approach, if fully implemented, constitutes a “Fresh Start” in terms of tackling and ending paramilitarism.

Finally, we have consistently asked that space be given for the wider focus that we feel is necessary in discussing paramilitarism, including by the media. Presenting the correct analysis is essential if an enduring and sustainable solution is to be found. The wider, more complex socioeconomic factors outlined in our Reports need to be taken into account, alongside the issues of criminality, for the outcomes we are all working towards to be achieved.  We fully recognise the sensitivities around any public debate or discussion around paramilitarism and the impact this has on victims and survivors of such activity. But ensuring that there are no further victims of paramilitarism will involve taking risks, and having realistic and pragmatic discussions and solutions. We fully recognise that this may be challenging given that the public debate on paramilitarism also impacts victims and survivors of violence, and discussions on the issue continue to affect their lives on a daily basis. The process in which we and others are engaged – to bring paramilitarism to an end – is ultimately seeking to ensure that there will be no further victims of paramilitarism. That is the key focus of our work.

For people living in communities where the paramilitary grip is strongest, the harm caused by paramilitaries is often ever-present.  People live with daily reminders of that reality.  We have heard from several organisations and individuals who have had direct experience of impact of coercive control, and official statistics show that 236 households presented to the Housing Executive as homeless due to paramilitary intimidation in 2020/21 alone.  Coercive control can take many forms, including intimidation, financial extortion, creating an environment where people are afraid to speak out, sexual abuse, stifling alternative voices and leaderships, and other forms of social control.  Physical manifestations of that control include what are sometimes termed “paramilitary style assaults”; that is to say assaults causing actual or grievous bodily harm.  Drugs and drug debts are frequently key elements.  Coercive control goes beyond the effect on the individual and serves to keep entire communities living in perpetual fear.  While the challenges facing communities where paramilitaries operate are clear and obvious, the reality is that for many other communities paramilitarism is not visible on a daily basis. But for these communities too, and therefore for Northern Ireland as a whole, the continued existence of paramilitarism in our view constitutes a ‘clear and present danger’ on an ongoing basis.

Whether the UK Government, NI Executive and Irish Government are working effectively together to achieve a society free of paramilitarism.

Whether the approach of the UK Government and NI Executive to tackling paramilitarism is sufficiently sustained, resourced and joined-up.

How effective measures under the Fresh Start Agreement have been in combining police and justice measures and tackling socioeconomic issues to eradicate paramilitarism in Northern Ireland.

Twin Track approach

In our analysis we continue to characterise the strategy required as a Twin Track approach to the tackling and ending of paramilitarism involving a comprehensive law enforcement response to paramilitary activity, coupled with transformational work to address underlying and prevailing socioeconomic issues facing communities most affected by paramilitary activity.  These include educational underachievement, adverse childhood experiences, unemployment, poverty, lack of investment, mental health issues and drugs. 

Progress

Over the six years since the Fresh Start Agreement, a whole new infrastructure has been put in place to tackle paramilitarism, involving a wide range of measures and initiatives which are now beginning to gain real traction.  While we share the impatience of many to see more progress more quickly, putting in place effective steps to deal with the myriad, complex issues involved takes time.  Some of these measures and initiatives have now bedded down and are starting to make a real impact in the communities where the paramilitaries mainly operate. 

Whole of Government approach

In particular, we welcome the commencement of Phase Two of the Tackling Paramilitary Activity, Criminality and Organised Crime Programme and the increasing emphasis on a Whole of Government approach to tackling paramilitarism.  As we outline above, the complex nature of the problem of paramilitarism requires a multi-faceted approach to its resolution.  That approach involves joined-up and integrated effort across a whole range of public bodies, collaborating closely with the community and voluntary sector and others.  We are pleased that this approach is very much at the heart of the Tackling Paramilitary Activity, Criminality and Organised Crime Programme and has been significantly enhanced in Phase Two. 

Examples of good work

We wanted to highlight some particular projects that have taken creative and effective approaches to particular problems and needs.  The obvious risk in doing so is that we know that we cannot highlight every project, but nevertheless we wanted to highlight these as particular examples of best practice, from which lessons can be drawn.

The Belfast City Council led multi-agency project to support people under threat which involves close co-operation between accredited restorative justice organisations and statutory partners is a having a positive impact on the lives of those who need support.  They are supporting some vulnerable clients with complex needs, in a situation of extreme stress when they come under threat.  The work has led to needs being more effectively met and in many cases threats being addressed.  The kind of close working and shared endeavour seen in this project are the key ingredients to success across the Programme, and more broadly to all the work required to end paramilitarism once and for all.

The Communities in Transition project is still developing, but we have seen some good examples of the impact it can have.  A vital aspect of tackling paramilitarism is increasing the confidence of communities, empowering them and giving them the tools, resources and opportunities to reduce vulnerabilities and narrow the ground exploited by paramilitaries.  Building alternative forms of community leadership is a key aspect of this and so capacity-building work to raise up new leaders and establish different community voices is of great importance.  Similarly, addressing the complex health and wellbeing needs of communities who have lived under paramilitary influence is so important to developing areas and helping them move forward, particularly by addressing vulnerabilities caused by drugs, alcohol and other forms of addiction.  Health and wellbeing projects should therefore also help change the situation in communities.  Likewise, funding small projects to explore new approaches to community safety and to find new ways to resolve local issues is welcome – building trust and confidence in the statutory sector, and empowering communities to find solutions.  Local problems must have locally-shaped and ideally locally-delivered solutions, and Communities in Transition is further demonstrating the power of that approach, as well as involving new organisations in delivery of this work. 

Other positive examples include:

• creative and effective work with at-risk young people to support them and reduce their vulnerability to paramilitary influence;
• provision of further education and training opportunities to prisoners in the separated prison regime;
• successful work with marginalised young men most at risk from being involved in paramilitarism and criminality to prevent and reduce offending and to enable these young men to resist negative influences and to develop their capacity, through personal development, health and wellbeing support, opening up access to employment, training and stable housing; and
• positive work to enable women’s organisations to enhance their role in helping end paramilitarism as well as encouraging women to take on leadership roles within their local communities.

Further work required

We regret, however, that a number of important aspects of this work have not progressed at the pace or scale that we would have liked to have seen. 

The establishment of a Centre for Restorative Excellence represents a significant opportunity for best practice in the field of restorative practice to be shared, to foster further partnerships and to develop this work further.  We welcome the funding provided to various projects under the Communities in Transition scheme, but these are no substitute for a dedicated fund and Centre. 

Work on relevant legislation, including committal reform, an adoption bill, organised crime legislation and ex-prisoners employment opportunities had understandably slowed in the absence of an Executive and fully functioning legislative Assembly from January 2017 to January 2020.  We are pleased that Committal Reform legislation recently received Royal Assent; the various criminal justice agencies must now work to make full use of the opportunity that it represents and to implement it at pace, as part of efforts to modernise and speed up the justice system.  Other legislative actions must be given a high priority as well, and we believe that the scale and pace of some reforms need to be increased significantly. 

We also believe that work on ex-prisoner issues needs to be reinvigorated, so that those needs and asks are progressing at the same pace as other aspects of this work. 

Programme approach

We have welcomed the focus in Phase Two of the Programme on benefits realisation and the impact of the more joined-up, inter-agency approach.  The Programme has also sought to engender collaboration and partnership through bringing together Programme and other relevant officials and agencies in “One Team” meetings, as well as a dedicated Programme team.  We commend that work to date, as we see join-up as vital to success.

Track One: Policing

The PSNI works at various levels to address harm caused to individuals and communities, by paramilitaries, dissident republican groups, terrorists, organised crime groups and others.  This involves many different parts of the organisation, including the dedicated Paramilitary Crime Task Force (which also includes National Crime Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs specialists) and broader Organised Crime Unit, the Terrorism Investigation Unit, Neighbourhood teams out working in communities, Community Safety and engagement teams, District police, and others, as well as close co-operation with relevant partners.  We have noted the increased co-operation taking place between the PSNI and others involved in the Tackling Paramilitary Activity, Criminality and Organised Crime Programme as part of a more joined-up approach. 

We also welcome the continued progress being made regarding cross-border co-operation on tackling paramilitarism. The threat from violent Dissident Republican groups has a significant cross-border dimension, as does organised criminality, and we commend the ongoing close co-operation between law enforcement agencies including the PSNI and An Garda Síochána, and between the two Justice Departments, together with the important work of the Joint Agency Task Force which was set up under the Fresh Start Agreement to tackle cross jurisdictional and organised crime. The NI Justice Minister and the Irish Minister of Justice meet at least twice a year under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Agreement on co-operation on criminal justice matters, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, NI Justice Minister and Chief Constable of the PSNI meet regularly to discuss the threat and combined strategic response. The UK and Irish Governments regularly discuss efforts to tackle paramilitarism including at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

Policing is undoubtedly a vital aspect of this work: the police have an important role to play and we welcome the recent focus on investigating leadership figures, seizures, searches and arrests made, and other work that they are doing including their commitment to neighbourhood policing and local problem-solving.  But law enforcement agencies alone cannot address this problem.  We recommended in our Third Report that there should be better linkage between the twin tracks at a strategic level.  We were therefore encouraged by reports of join-up between various projects and the police (for example supporting projects with young people), the PSNI’s strategic engagement with the Programme and wider initiatives such as the Department of Justice-led Community Safety Board, and their continuing efforts to ensure that the law enforcement response is as effective as possible.  Connections and relationships must continue to be built upon, and structures continually improved, as it is only with everyone playing their part that we can effectively tackle paramilitarism once and for all. 

Track One: other criminal justice aspects

Turning to other criminal justice aspects of this work, the Review of Sentencing Policy undertaken by the Department of Justice was welcome and we encourage a speedy implementation of the response to its findings, as appropriate sentencing is a key element of the overall effort to end paramilitarism and in ensuring and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.  We also welcome the roll-out and increasing use of Indictable Case Principles in relevant cases, which should help improve case processing times.  The commencement of Unexplained Wealth Orders and Account Freezing Orders gives law enforcement additional powers to tackle paramilitary-related crime which they could not previously access.  Unduly Lenient Sentence provisions were extended to cover hybrid offences linked to terrorism, paramilitary activity and organised crime groups. 

Track Two

The challenges facing many of these communities were generations in the making, pre-dating the Troubles.  As a consequence, addressing them requires a sustained, joined-up and well-resourced approach with a long-term commitment.  We welcome the intent of the Programme to ensure its initiatives become part of wider, long-term public policies.  This linking with existing structures and policy is critical in ensuring sustainability in dealing with such issues over the longer term.  That is why we think it is essential that tackling paramilitarism becomes a dedicated outcome in the Programme for Government, becomes part of the business as usual of all relevant departments and agencies, and that linked socioeconomic issues are progressed through an ambitious Programme for Government at the same time. 

We believe that a public health approach – which treats violence like a disease, seeks to understand its causes, brings expertise and experience to bear from a wide range of relevant disciplines, develops innovative practice to prevent it, evaluates that practice and rolls out learnings elsewhere – is a useful approach for this work.  Tackling paramilitarism requires everyone to play their part. 

We have continued to argue that transforming educational underachievement will be one of the most significant contributors to ensuring a Northern Ireland which is sustainably free of paramilitarism.  We hope that the work of a Panel to develop an Action Plan to address this, A Fair Start, and the ongoing review of education will lead to tangible change on the ground, and have made recommendations to that end. 

Because everyone playing their part, in a Whole of Government response, is a key factor for success of this work we were concerned by the finding of the Northern Ireland Commission for Children and Young People that “the consistent and active presence of safeguarding agencies and children’s social care (identified as having a key role in partnership working elsewhere) is less clear” in work to protect children from harm including abuse, violence, coercion and exploitation by organised gangs and groups[3]. 

We also welcome initiatives that focus on supporting victims of paramilitary groups and providing support for those who are acutely vulnerable to paramilitary groups.  One such initiative is the Connect Programme (based on the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit’s Navigator Programme) in which youth workers based in Altnagelvin Hospital Emergency Department engage with young victims of violence and perpetrators of violence and provide follow-up support, building a wrap-around them including work with their wider family.  We have heard encouraging reports about the work of the Connect Programme and look forward to seeing this model rolled out in other hospitals, knowing how effective it has been in Scotland and elsewhere.  A Mid and East Antrim Youth Support Hub is also making progress in addressing the needs of young people at risk from paramilitary groups. 

Sufficient resources

It is clear that the task of ending paramilitarism once and for all requires a comprehensive focus, including multi-year financial commitments to reflect the need for sustained investment.  Financial support for the programmes and initiatives involved should be maintained to the full by the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.  We have recommended that the funding secured for the Fresh Start initiatives on tackling paramilitarism should be maintained by both the UK Government and the Executive, and be given a high priority in the present challenging fiscal climate.  In addition, the UK Government must ensure that its levelling up work gives sufficient priority to tackling paramilitarism and associated socioeconomic challenges.

Work to end paramilitarism is a long-term goal and we welcomed the approval of Phase Two (along with funding of £13m for 2021-22 and £10m over three years for the Communities in Transition project) as a recognition of this.

More needs to be done to join the work of the Tackling Paramilitary Activity, Criminality and Organised Crime Programme with that of the Programme for Government to address the systemic socioeconomic factors that can be exploited by paramilitary groups.  Dealing with these issues requires a concerted long-term Whole of Government approach, with all relevant agencies and departments playing their part.  The Programme cannot by itself address systemic issues which is why it needs to be sufficiently linked to and buttressed by an ambitious, wider Programme for Government. 

Furthermore, political leadership will be vital if we are to see paramilitarism ended once and for all. 

The Northern Ireland Office actively participate in the Tackling Paramilitarism, Criminality and Organised Crime Programme Board meetings through Director level attendance, and also participates at working level in the range of coordination meetings supporting delivery of the Programme.  The Secretary of State has regular engagement with the Justice Minister, and extensive, regular engagements with the Chief Constable, his senior officers and a variety of law enforcement bodies.  Security cooperation and tackling paramilitarism are regular features of discussion between the UK and Irish Governments in a range of fora, including the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. In our latest Report we welcomed the UK Government’s acknowledgement that a whole of system approach to the shared problem of tackling the shared ecosystem within which terrorism, paramilitarism and organised crime exist is required, and their ambition to ensure that activities to address these related threats are mutually reinforcing and aligned with overarching objectives.  We recommended that the Executive, UK Government and partners, including Irish agencies on the cross-border dimension, continue joining-up work effectively and ensuring that opportunities are maximised and lessons and learnings shared.  We welcomed the commitment of the UK Government to continue to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive and other partners on the role of UK legislation in facilitating transition, and its keeping under review of the efficacy of UK legislation in supporting Northern Ireland Executive-led efforts to tackle paramilitarism. We also welcomed the Irish Government’s commitment to keep relevant legislation under review and its establishment of a Review Group to examine all aspects of the Offences Against the State Acts.

Finally, our Reports have also identified various issues, including addressing the legacy of the Troubles, Brexit and the Protocol on Northern Ireland/Ireland, political stability, shared housing, integrated education, good relations, commemorations of the past that have a paramilitary dimension and other issues covered in the FICT Report, as being linked in various ways to tackling paramilitarism.  Progress across these issues is vital. 

What the socioeconomic effects are of paramilitaries on communities in Northern Ireland;

In our First Report we mapped, at ward level across Northern Ireland, indicators of paramilitary presence and measures of socioeconomic deprivation. We noted the extent to which they corresponded. The mapping indicates that social deprivation and paramilitary activity are linked. To tackle paramilitarism effectively a Twin-Track approach encompassing a criminal justice response alongside a systemic response to the socioeconomic issues is required. We are not saying that all paramilitary activity is rooted in socioeconomic deprivation – it is very clear that many other factors such as identity, political persuasion, and local traditions are also in play. But socioeconomic deprivation serves as a fuel and a driver of paramilitarism. While the peace that has developed since the ceasefires and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement has benefited Northern Ireland, the sustained, long-term investments that are needed in communities to tackle what are exceptionally deep-rooted, intractable issues have not yet been made in our view in a sufficiently targeted way which takes account of the very particular circumstances prevailing in each of them.

Paramilitary groups can be a bar to the transformational change needed in the communities in which they operate.  In some communities paramilitaries engaged in criminal activity create fear, intimidate, gatekeep resources and support, use violence or the threat of violence, and exploit individuals and groups.  This has a serious impact on people and local areas. 

We welcome the intent of the Tackling Paramilitarism Programme to ensure its initiatives become part of wider, long-term public policies. This linking with existing structures and policy is critical in ensuring sustainability in dealing with such issues over the longer term. That is another reason why we think it essential that tackling paramilitarism becomes a dedicated outcome in the Programme for Government, becomes part of the business as usual of all relevant departments and agencies, and that linked socioeconomic issues are progressed through an ambitious Programme for Government.

Whether there should be a dedicated formal process of engagement with paramilitary organisations aimed at their disbandment.

In our recent Reports we have given prominence to our view that to those two Tracks should be added a further dimension, namely that to end paramilitarism we also need an agreed formal process of Group Transition, involving direct engagement with the Paramilitary Groups themselves.  The end goal of that process of engagement would be disbandment of the Groups.  Their continued presence constitutes a live and unacceptable risk, and holds entire communities back, as paramilitary groups can be a bar to the transformational change needed in the communities in which they mainly operate.  It is our view that a policing/justice approach alone is not sufficient – law enforcement is an important part of tackling paramilitarism, but is not enough on its own.  It is not feasible to arrest everyone suspected of involvement in paramilitarism – as others have said, agreeing with this analysis: you cannot arrest your way out of this problem.  Consequently, the disbandment of paramilitary organisations has to involve voluntary action by the Groups and therefore their co-operation.  There is also the reality that continued paramilitarism is connected to the wider context of the Troubles, and therefore just as a process of political engagement – ultimately leading to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement – was needed to bring the Troubles to an end, a similar process is now necessary to definitively end paramilitarism.  We see Group Transition as a necessary addition to, and working in parallel with, the Twin Tracks of Policing/Criminal Justice and addressing the socioeconomic challenges of the communities concerned. 

As part of our own consideration of Group Transition over the last year, we have held discussions on the concept with the two Governments at political and official levels, leaders and representatives of political parties, relevant officials of Executive Departments, a range of academics and other stakeholders.  We have found these discussions very helpful in advancing our consideration of the issue. 

We appreciate that there are many complexities and sensitivities surrounding the concept of Group Transition and a wide range of views about the challenges these represent in taking forward the concept.  Indeed, some believe that a process of engagement to bring about Group Transition is no longer appropriate or feasible, and that disbandment is a matter purely for the police and justice systems. Our analysis leads us to a different view.  We recall that the Peace Process required a decision to engage directly with those previously involved in campaigns of violence.  We believe that ending paramilitarism now will require a comparable process of engagement with those directly involved.  This will involve engagement with the paramilitary groups, as individual transition will not involve the critical mass required in terms of ending paramilitarism. 

Many people have asked us what exactly such a process of engagement might look like.  We set out in the following paragraphs some initial thoughts in that regard, based on our own thinking and on the conversations we have held with various stakeholders including academics. We are also conscious of the perspectives of victims and their families.  To be clear, these are preliminary ideas and are not prescriptive.  They are intended to stimulate debate.  If a process of engagement aimed at Group Transition of paramilitaries were to be adopted, much ground work would be needed to prepare the way, starting with developing definitions of the various elements of the issue, including the very concept of transition itself, as we found that there are many variations of what the term means in today’s context.

Possible Elements of a Group Transition Process

A critical question that emerged in our discussion is “Who would own the process?”  Our answer is the two Governments and the Executive, acting on a co-ordinated, collective basis, as happened for the Fresh Start Agreement.  Only the Governments and the Executive have the mandate and authority to design and implement what is needed.

We envision that the overall process would be overseen by a formal body established for that purpose by the two Governments, in consultation with the Executive (along the lines, for instance, of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains).  In terms of the various milestones that would mark the process of engagement with the Paramilitary Groups, we envision them committing, among others, to the following: 

-          Ending recruitment to paramilitary groups;

-          Giving up paramilitary structures and activity;

-          Ceasing mobilisation of members;

-          Ceasing to exercise coercive power and control in communities;

-          Ending of all paramilitary style attacks and all other forms of violence, threat of violence or intimidation;

-          Disposal of any remaining weaponry and materiel;

-          Allowing people to exit from paramilitarism without cost or consequence;

-          Publicly supporting the PSNI and criminal justice system in tackling criminality and committing to democracy and the rule of law; and

-          Engaging with Legacy Bodies.

The primary goal of the process should be disbandment of the Groups rather than their continuation in any form, but we recognise that this is one of the issues for consideration.  Achieving each step in itself would be valuable progress.

We acknowledge that this process would involve significant work on what would happen on the other side of Group Transition – in other words, reintegration.  This is a major question in its own right and would need to be considered in any comprehensive process of Group Transition.

One further factor that would need to be considered is whether there would be any role in the process of Group Transition for Deproscription of the paramilitary organisations (i.e. removing them from the list of prohibited terrorist groups under UK Counterterrorism Legislation).  As we have stated in our Reports, we acknowledge that Deproscription is a highly sensitive issue.  We are not taking a view on its merits one way or another at this point, but merely pointing out again that it remains on the Statute Books and would be one of the factors considered in any comprehensive process of Group Transition.

We reiterate our appreciation of the major sensitivities and challenges which surround the issue of Group Transition.  But after more than five years working together in the IRC, we see no means by which the Fresh Start goal of ending paramilitarism once and for all can be achieved without a comprehensive process of Group Transition.  Events last year have shown how problematic the continuation of paramilitarism is for society. Our concern is that the situation will deteriorate further if action of the kind we describe is not taken now.  Our view is that the two Governments and the parties signed up to the goal of ending paramilitarism in 2015 and there is a real onus on them now to ensure that it is delivered.  We also note that all Ministers and MLAs are required to make six specific commitments around ending paramilitarism in the Ministerial Pledge of Office and the undertaking given by Members of the Legislative Assembly.  Working together towards a process of Group Transition is, in our view, a key element of delivering on those commitments. 

May 2022