SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
58. Our principal conclusions and recommendations
are summarised below:
(a) On 6 March 2001,
Mr Denis Haughey MLA, Minister in the Office of the First Minister
and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) commented:
"Government wishes to meet the real identified
needs of victims strategically, so that we do not leave gaps in
provision. 'Programme for Government' confirms the commitment
to putting in place a cross-departmental strategy and detailing
precisely how government will tackle the important areas of victims.
This will result in the adoption of a service-wide, systematic
approach to making life better for those who have suffered. We
are also committed to improving services offered to victims by
April 2002, a challenge which requires the active support of all
departments and all public bodies ...."
We welcome this general commitment made on behalf
of the Northern Ireland Executive. The needs of victims of paramilitary
intimidation should be a key element in formulating strategy and
delivering services and the voices of the victims should be heard.
(Paragraph 8)
(b) As a precursor
to improving the response to the problem of relocation following
paramilitary intimidation, there needs to be a significantly more
accurate definition of the extent of the problem, and the pattern
of relocation. It is clear from the evidence that there is at
present no reliable overall information on this, although organisations
providing assistance may have a good insight into these matters
within their own sphere of activity. What needs to be done, though,
is to bring these together and consolidate them. The new computerised
database being developed by the RUC may well have an important
part to play in this. There is also a need to seek to fill the
gaps in the information pattern, given the general agreement that
there is under-reporting in the official statistics. (Paragraph
22)
(c) Concern has been expressed in the Northern
Ireland Assembly, that when paramilitaries force unconvicted drug
dealers from their homes, as a result of the intimidation they
go to the top of Housing Executive lists for re-housing. We are
pleased to note that the Minister recognises the unacceptability
of this situation, and welcome the fact that he proposes to bring
forward legislation in the Assembly to deal with this problem.
(Paragraph 27)
(d) Another potential difficulty which must
be avoided is re-housing those displaced from their homes in a
way which unnecessarily reinforces existing housing patterns.
At all costs, it is important to ensure that, in re-housing those
displaced, the objective of the paramilitaries in many cases,
of creating areas homogeneous in their allegiance, is not assisted.
In this context, we note the concerns expressed by Assistant Chief
Constable McQuillan about the role of the RUC in advising the
Housing Executive. Housing homogeneity appears to be a particular
aim of the loyalist paramilitaries as in the case of the loyalist
feud in parts of Belfast last year. The Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission has drawn attention to the fact that there may
often be a discrimination dimension to intimidation. We note that
the section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 imposes on public
authorities a broad duty to "have regard to the desirability
of promoting good relations between persons of different religious
belief, political opinion or racial group." We recommend
that the Housing Executive issues a statement indicating how it
takes account of these important new duties when deciding how
and where to re-house victims of paramilitary intimidation. (Paragraph
28)
(e) The Base 2 figures provide a useful breakdown,
which reveals that a significant proportion of those approaching
NIACRO for assistance because they perceive themselves to be under
threat of paramilitary action are not apparently under any such
threat. We recommend that a study be made of the reasons why this
is so, and of the basis for their perception. (Paragraph 36)
(f) NIACRO told us that it has arranged for
an independent review of Base 2 services by Professor Harry Mika
of the University of Michigan. We understand that this is nearly
complete and we look forward to seeing a copy in due course. (Paragraph
37)
(g) In the light of the evidence we have received,
we consider that there is a case for a more formal system of co-ordination
in Great Britain of assistance to those forced to move there from
Northern Ireland. An Anti-Intimidation Unit, as proposed by New
Dialogue, might have a part to play in this. We also invite the
Northern Ireland Executive to review the scope and effectiveness
of the co-ordinating arrangements in Northern Ireland. (Paragraph
39)
(h) Improved co-ordination, though, is not,
in our view, sufficient. There is also a need for greater advertising
of the assistance available, so vulnerable people, forced from
their homes, know where and who to turn to. A substantial number
turn to NIACRO and its Base 2 services and we commend what this
project has achieved to date. However, these are, deliberately,
the subject of only limited publicity. We recommend that the Government
and the Northern Ireland Executive, in their respective areas
of operation, take steps to ensure that information on the support
services available to those forced from their homes is made widely
available to bodies likely to come into contact with such people,
and that these bodies are encouraged to be pro-active in passing
it on. (Paragraph 40)
(i) We welcome the development by NIACRO of
its programme to support re-entry of persons previously excluded.
We also welcome the assurances we were given that this did not
involve coming to an agreement with paramilitaries on particular
cases, although Maranatha had experience of other cases where
payments had been made. We would be very concerned about any actions,
however laudable their motivation, which in effect gave express
or implied recognition to illegal actions of paramilitaries, or
appeared to legitimise their purported contribution to law enforcement.
(Paragraph 44)
(j) We utterly condemn any activity by groups
on either side of the community that is aimed at intimidating
people into leaving the Province, or into relocating within the
Province. The evidence we have received demonstrates beyond peradventure
the misery caused by such illegal activity. There can be no justification
for such conduct in a civilised society committed to the defence
of internationally agreed human rights standards. (Paragraph 48)
(k) We welcome the steps being taken to seek
to eliminate this practice. We wholeheartedly commend the excellent
work being done by voluntary bodies, such as the Maranatha Community,
to assist those forced to relocate to Great Britain. We also commend
the work of NIACRO in relation to those under threat of punishment
beatings. We note that there are working links between these two
bodies, and with other voluntary sector groups. We believe that
these should be encouraged. (Paragraph 49)
(l) We welcome also the clear commitment by
the RUC to tackling this problem. It described the position thus:
"There is no doubt that intimidation in general
and especially those cases where individuals are forced to flee
their homes is a significant problem and one we treat very seriously.
It is also a difficult problem to detect and prevent unless there
is real support from the wider community in the areas in question."
We agree that this problem will only be overcome
when the community as a whole rallies behind the forces of law
and order. We hope that the forthcoming changes in the police
force in Northern Ireland will create a climate conducive to this,
and enable the progress made to date by the RUC to be built on.
(Paragraph 50)
(m) Our evidence also shows some of the difficulties
faced in tackling the problem. It is vital, though, that it is
not simply ignored. As Professor Kennedy commented:
"Turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the problem
of paramilitary domination of certain areas, including the practice
of exiling, is a gross betrayal of some of the most vulnerable,
powerless and disadvantaged members of our society."
He also said:
"We need to break the silence, at all levels
of society here. There has to be a fundamental debate about the
gravity of the problems posed by paramilitary organisations in
this society, in relation to children, individual adults, families
and communities. The governments in Belfast, Dublin and London
have a major responsibility here. So also do the media and community
groups."
We agree, and hope that this Report might provide
a focus for such a debate. Greater publicity for the activities
of paramilitaries in terms of human rights abuses, driven by closer
attention being given to the problem by organisations and groups
concerned with human rights in the Province, could clearly play
a significant part in this process. (Paragraph 51)
(n) While it is undoubtedly the case that
not all those subject to intimidation are paragons of virtue,
arbitrarily and summarily cast out of the community in which they
live, to the concern and dismay of their neighbours (a claim frequently
made by apologists for paramilitary 'law enforcers'), this is
not the point. It is a fundamental tenet of human rights law that
"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations
or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to
a fair and public hearing .... by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law", to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty according to law and to specific rights in relation
to their defence. However serious the allegations against them,
everyone is entitled to these protections: the summary 'justice'
of the paramilitaries is a contempt of these rights. (Paragraph
52)
(o) The problem is inextricably bound up with
the legacy of thirty years of terrorism and a recent Royal Ulster
Constabulary report provides evidence that a majority of the organised
criminal gangs operating in the Province have current or historic
links to republican or loyalist paramilitaries. The single greatest
contribution to tackling the problem of paramilitary exclusions
will be enhanced public confidence in the rule of law. By itself,
though, this is unlikely to be enough. The influence of the paramilitaries
will have to be weakened generally. The new Organised Crime Task
Force, and the promised crackdown on organised crime, will have
an important part to play in this. Measures to tackle the economic
deprivation that appears to have provided the paramilitaries with
fertile recruiting grounds may also be relevant. (Paragraph 53)
(p) As Mr Ingram observed in the Parliamentary
Answer quoted earlier in this Report, paramilitary intimidation
is more easily stopped when all members of the community stand
together. Another key element is that the police are in a position,
which they are not at present, to produce in court sufficient
credible evidence in relation to identifiable individuals to secure
convictions. To improve the current position, Professor Kennedy
called for "a campaign of support for the police, where most
of the political parties, accepted their responsibilities to support
just and fair policing." We support this call. (Paragraph
54)
(q) We are convinced that there is a need
for a greater degree of focus and co-ordination on the very real
problems faced by those forced from their homes by paramilitary
intimidation. At present there appears to be no clear public policy
on how to handle this difficult human problem, which is one of
long standing. In this context, it is perhaps noteworthy that
a 1991 report from the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body
drew attention, amongst other matters, to:
- the importance of assistance to young people
coming from Northern Ireland as a result of paramilitary activity
receiving further study and support;
- the problems of acceptance and assimilation
which may be faced in Great Britain by members of the unionist
community, who regard themselves as 'British' rather than 'Irish';
and
- the need to improve information for those
coming to major British cities from Northern Ireland. (Paragraph
55)
(r) The cross-departmental strategy being
developed by the Executive should improve focus and co-ordination
in respect of those relocating within the Province. However, a
mechanism is undoubtedly also needed to help improve arrangements
in Great Britain. At present, no one agency in Great Britain has
responsibility for policy on this issue. We recommend that the
Government take steps to establish a focal point with responsibility
for co-ordinating both the development of policy in this area
and the activities of government departments and agencies, local
government and other bodies, including statutory bodies and voluntary
associations. Such a focal point could also bring together representatives
of all the bodies and groups concerned, with a view to seeking
to draw up guidelines aimed at ensuring that victims of paramilitary
intimidation forced to come from Northern Ireland to Great Britain
receive appropriate assistance and support (paragraph 56).
(s) One of the functions of this Report is
to highlight the plight of victims of paramilitary intimidation,
particularly those forced to leave their homes, and the need for
a more supportive response to this largely hidden legacy of the
Troubles. In view of the seriousness of the problem of paramilitary
intimidation in Northern Ireland, we recommend that this Report,
and the relevant Government responses, be further considered by
the House. (Paragraph 57)
| 
