Timothy Gaston
North Antrim · Traditional Unionist Voice · Northern Ireland
“I begin my remarks by putting on record, once again, my thanks to the victims and survivors who have campaigned for many years to bring us to this point today, where the Bill will pass its Final Stage.”
“There is an onus on the Assembly in the next mandate to ensure that the work continues, with a second phase of redress that will consider individualised acknowledgement of the harm and trauma that the birth mothers and adult adoptees experienced.”
“I trust that those who have worked diligently in the background on the terms of reference will reflect the requests of the Committee and those who have given evidence to ensure that they are victim-centred and that truth and justice will be pursued.”
“Throughout the process, the Committee has taken steps to ensure that victims and survivors of religious institutions, state homes and private homes see themselves reflected in the Bill.”
“At a recent meeting of the Committee for the Executive Office, the Migrants' Rights Network complained that, in the second half of 2025, the UK Government increased raids focused on illegal working. When raids increased by 76%, arrests increased by 169%.”
“The revelations that have come to light since dirty Donaldson's conviction and the red flags that his colleagues ignored raise profound and troubling questions for the DUP, but for Sinn Féin generally and Deirdre Hargey in particular to come to the Chamber and pontificate about safeguarding is utter hypocrisy.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,236 lines we hold for Timothy Gaston, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 45.
“There is £1 million allocated for an Irish Language Commissioner, an office established jointly by the DUP and Sinn Féin. We have another £1 million for a Climate Commissioner, again as a result of Sinn Féin and DUP agreement. In returning to the Executive, the DUP maintained its claim that the Irish Sea border was gone, yet, on page 30 of the Budget Bill, we see money from a Department that it jointly runs going towards the outworking of the Windsor framework. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, Dr Aiken observed rightly that expenditure relying on the sole authority of the Budget Act has fallen since we last debated the Estimates and a Budget Bill. I acknowledge that, as I acknowledged it during the debate yesterday. However, it is worth observing that there is over £17 million of such expenditure.”
“That Department cannot fix potholes or grit roads in rural locations leading to schools. It also oversees Northern Ireland Water, whose infrastructure is at capacity in many towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland, bringing construction to a standstill. That is a major fear that I have, and it will strangle our economy. It is, however, the very Department that handed back £134 million of capital moneys owing to the collapse of the A5 project, after it was struck down by the climate change legislation that this place voted through. You could not make it up. The farce continues from mandate to mandate. <BR /> <BR />I ask Members to turn to schedule 1 — pages 28 to 30 —and read the Executive Office Estimate to see what sits within its remit.”
“Today the House is being asked to place statutory authority behind enormous sums of public money. Clause 1 of the Budget Bill authorises the use of £32,672,027,000 of resources for the year ending 31 March 2026. Clause 3 authorises the issue of £28,100,470,000 in cash from the Consolidated Fund. Those are extraordinary figures, and they come, of course, from the United Kingdom block grant. For all the talk from nationalism of British austerity, Northern Ireland continues to receive significantly more per head than England does. The issue before us again today is not whether the money exists — the Bill tells me that it does — but how it is spent and, in some cases, how it is not spent. <BR /> <BR />Let me look briefly at the Department for Infrastructure, where many of people's frustrations lie.”
“Minister, the hospitality sector can no longer survive with its rates being calculated based on turnover, while the soaring cost of food and utilities is ignored. I understand that you have refused to commission a working group to partner with the sector to design a methodology that is fair and equitable. Reval2026 was going to cause devastation to the industry: what help are you offering the sector today? You said in your initial response that you are open to looking at what people offer, but what is your Department doing to ensure that the methodology is correct, fair and equitable?”
“Out of interest, does the Member share my concern that the Executive Office allocates £6·077 million a year to ending violence against women and girls? Does he agree that that funding would be better spent in the Justice Department, where more tangible benefits could come from it, instead of its being given to councils, where we cannot then determine the outcomes from the money that is spent?”
“At a time when sewerage infrastructure is at capacity, meaning that new builds cannot be built, we have an Infrastructure Minister handing back £134 million of capital. How many potholes would that repair? There are major questions for the Minister for Infrastructure.”
“If there is a sound reason for that, I trust that the Minister will let us know it in his summing up. The Estimates and the Budget Bill appear to be running very close to the end of the financial year. Indeed, there has been a delay of a week. Standing Orders require time for legislation to progress to Final Stage. Will the Minister confirm that discussions with the Bill Office have already taken place and that Royal Assent will be obtained in time? If not, expenditure beyond the levels in Main Estimates would be irregular. <BR /> <BR />As I look around, I see plenty of blue Benches without anybody sitting on them. At a time when many families are struggling, MLAs are in line to get a £14,200 per year pay rise.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will turn, briefly, to the Assembly Commission. On page 228 of the spring Supplementary Estimates 2025-26, we see that the Commission is being allocated £64·687 million in resource and AME. At a time when public services are under pressure, the public are entitled to expect discipline from this House. If we speak about restraint elsewhere, we must apply the same standards to ourselves. <BR /> <BR />There are further issues of governance that the Minister should address. The Vote on Account normally provides around 45% of the previous year's requirements to allow services to continue until the Main Estimates are passed. Yet, I note that the Utility Regulator appears to be receiving 100% of its cash requirement at this stage.”
“I recently asked the Executive Office to clarify whether successful groups were limited to those that represent actual women and girls. Bizarrely, the Executive Office said that it did not collect that information. I can tell the House today that Ron McDowell, my colleague who sits on Belfast City Council, has established that at least one of the groups being funded via the £6 million scheme includes men who pretend to be women under the label of "transgender". That is an insult to every taxpayer —”
“That is not how serious Governments operate. Millions are being spent on a migration system that I and many others believe has failed: that should concern us. <BR /> <BR />I highlight the £6·77 million that is going to the ending violence against women and girls scheme. Violence against women and girls is an issue of profound seriousness. If that money was being well spent, it would be going to a worthy cause. From my work on the Committee for the Executive Office, however, I am increasingly concerned that those millions are not being put to the best possible use. The money has been pumped out to councils, and we have examples of councils coming back to the Department saying that they do not know what to do with it. We then have the issue of the nature of the groups that receive the money.”
“MLAs should be concerned about that. Of that Executive Office expenditure, nearly £4 million relates to immigration and asylum schemes, including £1·2 million for the full dispersal asylum seekers' scheme. Many Members, myself included, support some of those — I certainly support assistance for those who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan — but the question is one of accountability. This is the only opportunity that the House has to scrutinise that expenditure, yet it proceeds without bespoke legislation and without detailed policy scrutiny.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I admit that progress is being made, but, fundamentally, to do that is to go against your own guidance. The Department's guidance is absolutely clear. It states that the Assembly usually authorises spending by approving specific legislation setting out how a policy should operate. It further states that the sole authority of the Budget Act should be relied on only in limited circumstances and normally for expenditure of no more than £1·5 million — I raised the issue last year; I raise it again today — yet we are being asked to approve more than £17 million under that mechanism. <BR /> <BR />Over £15 million of that sum sits in one Department: the Executive Office. That is not an incidental, technical adjustment; that is a pattern of governing first and legislating later.”
“In plain English, that means that services proceed without bespoke legislation having been brought before the House for debate and proper scrutiny.”
“That reminds us of a basic truth that, I am sure, the Minister and I will agree on, which is that it is, indeed, good to be British. For all the talk of British austerity, Northern Ireland receives more per head than any other part of the United Kingdom: over £1·20 per person for every £1 spent in England. So, when people look around and see waiting lists growing and roads crumbling before their eyes, the issue is not lack of money, regardless of the narrative being peddled by nationalists in the House, but how the money is prioritised and spent. <BR /> <BR />Let me turn to something more fundamental. In the spring Supplementary Estimates, over £17 million of expenditure rests on what is known as:”
“I speak as a lowly Back-Bencher. Due to the seriousness of the debate, it is important to put my comments on record. The sums that the Assembly is today approving to be spent are simply eye-watering: £28,100,470,000 in cash and over £32 billion in total in authorised resources. That is what we are being asked to approve, and, naturally, it raises a simple question: where does that money come from? The answer, of course, is the block grant.”
“I present the petition on behalf of the 1,309 signatories from the Bangor area.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are real fears that plans to convert the building into a hotel or commercial venue could restrict public use, destroy the stained-glass tributes and diminish its civic role. The prayer of the petition reads:”
“The petition that I present has been organised by the North Down branch of Traditional Unionist Voice. Particular credit for the gathering of the 1,309 signatures must go to branch chairman, Peter Wilson. However, while the petition had its origins in TUV, the issue on which it touches transcends party politics. <BR /> <BR />Bangor Castle has been a civic headquarters since 1941. The building was purchased with public money and has served as the seat of local government in the area for over 80 years. It remains a venue for civil wedding ceremonies and is attended by the public to register births and deaths, which makes it part of life's most important milestones. The building is grade A listed and has stained-glass windows honouring the RUC, the UDR and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service of our nation.”
“— in that report. We have to take on board our own advice. If we are to be victim-centred, we need to think of victims at every step in the process.”
“Máiría was in contact prior to the debate to say that the motion leaves a degree of ambiguity about whether victims of sexual crime linked to terror should go to the PSNI. I welcome Mr Beattie's comments, encouraging all victims to use the justice system and report abuse to the PSNI. I also want to be clear that victims should go to the PSNI, not just to the legacy body, about abuse and that the IRA's activity did not stop in 1998. <BR /> <BR />As I draw my remarks to a close, I will say that the House needs to get its own structures in order. During the debate on my sanction, I pointed out that Máiría Cahill was mentioned in the report. I have mentioned previously that neither the commissioner nor the Standards and Privileges Committee thought to mention to the victim that she would be named —”
“In response to Linda Dillon's comments, Máiría tweeted:”
“Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Indeed, that is where I want to centre my remarks, but I could not let it go past that those were the questions that I was trying to raise, yet I was ruled out of order. <BR /> <BR />I want to make some comments about the substance of the motion. The most notorious case of sexual abuse linked to the IRA is that of Máiría Cahill, yet the motion excludes some of her case because it links investigations into sexual violence with the Legacy Commission. The commission has a cut-off date of 1998. Anyone who is familiar with Máiría's case will know that, while the abuse took place during the time that the commission deals with, the subsequent IRA investigation took place between 1999 and 2000. If anybody wants to know what Máiría thought of today's debate, all that you have to do is look at X.”
“However, in light of what we have heard from Alliance and the SDLP during the debate, I have to call out the hypocrisy: not so long ago, those Members were happy to ban me from the Chamber for two days on the basis of a report that said that I had disrupted —”
“Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is what I am getting to. I will give a sample of the questions that I asked of the First Minister. I asked her whether she wanted to take the opportunity to apologise to Máiría Cahill. That brings us directly back to the motion that we are talking about today. Here we are, discussing a motion on Troubles-related sexual crimes and child abuse that calls for action from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I do not quibble with that, nor do I take exception to or question the right of the UUP to bring the matter before the House, given that it had the good sense to oppose the sanction that was imposed on me.”
“The motion is good in so far as it goes, but it raises a number of issues. First, just a fortnight ago, a majority of MLAs endorsed a sanction against me because I had raised the issue of paramilitary-linked sexual abuse with the First Minister. Paragraph 24 of the Commissioner for Standards' report stated:”
“No. <BR /> <BR />On that basis, I happily move my motion and commend it to the House.”
“That is why it is fair that I said to draw a line in the sand, and any public money that is awarded from here for any sport in the future should be subject to the clawback mechanism. <BR /> <BR />Do I get an extra minute, since I was interrupted four times?”
“It is frustrating how nationalism has not listened. Nationalists have not read the motion or listened to anything that has been said, but he did say something that was quite interesting. He talked about a £2·8 billion generation figure and about the social and economic benefits that flow from it. If those are the benefits that come, where is the GAA's fair and equitable proportion to give into it? If it means so much to the GAA — I go on to Mr McNulty talking about "a symbol of hope" and "the beating heart of the GAA" — why not stick your hand in your pocket, get the wallet out and pay your fair share for Casement Park? <BR /> <BR />Time after time, you want the priority to be all things GAA. You want it to be treated differently, and that is something that I do not want. I want all sports to be treated the same.”
“Sinéad Ennis talked about wasted time, so I will skip on over her remarks because I do not want to waste my time responding to her. <BR /> <BR />Pam Cameron brought us back to what the motion is really about: the public finances. She asked a simple question: where is the funding to the public purse? When we are putting in substantial amounts of money, there has to be a return for it. <BR /> <BR />To pick up on Mr Brett's remarks, I can just reassure him — I am sure that he is watching from upstairs — that TUV policy has not changed. We are opposed to Casement Park. However, I am in this House and I know the hand that I have been dealt. I recognise that Mr Brett and others signed up to Casement a long time ago, and I have to work with the hand that I have been dealt. <BR /> <BR />Mr Colm Gildernew talked about a culture war.”
“You went on to talk about scoring points. One thing that I would say to you, Mark, is that when I hit, I put the ball in the net. The GAA likes to put it over the bar and miss the target, whereas every time that I take a shot, I hit my target.”
“<BR /> <BR />Aisling Reilly, I want to come back to you because you talked about double standards. You did not listen to my intervention at all, because you still went on with your pre-scripted nonsense that this was all just about me against the GAA, which could not be further from the truth. This is about public prudence and public money. It is quite clear from your contribution that Casement is the cash cow that will bankroll the future of the GAA. That is not the case for rugby or football. That shows how you believe that the GAA should be treated differently, and, time after time, Member after Member who stood up on the nationalist side showed that the GAA should be treated differently. <BR /> <BR />Mark Durkan talked about regenerating west Belfast. There is no doubt about that: parity of esteem.”
“However, this is not about the GAA per se: it is about public money, fairness and the prudent use of public money. <BR /> <BR />I will highlight Andy Allen's contribution. I thought that it was excellent. He talked about the planning challenges that have afflicted the project right from the get-go and about the court decisions. He talked about construction inflation and pointed out that the GAA has committed only £15 million to the project to date, at a time when — we talked about potholes yesterday — there is not the money to put into potholes, and our schools are crumbling and we cannot build new ones. I think of Causeway Academy. We had a meeting yesterday morning, and that school has not even made the list of new schools. Yet the GAA has given a measly commitment of £15 million.”
“He outlined how the project has been beset with problems from the get-go. <BR /> <BR />In no particular order, I come to Cathy Mason, who talked about a farce. She asked a simple question. I wanted to give her a simple answer, but she did not want to know. She would not accept an intervention. That was a case of me coming out and publicly saying, in this place, in my motion, that I have no problem, whether it is with football, rugby or GAA: from this point forward, they should face the clawback mechanism. The problem was that the Member did not want me to intervene. It was quite clear. She had a script in front of her, and she would have to throw out the entire script. Time after time, Sinn Féin Members just wanted to line up and attack me for what I think about the GAA.”
“I thank the Minister for that clarity. My concern is about the Northern Ireland Football League funding for stadia and the clubs the length and breadth of Northern Ireland, such as Ballymena United, who have participated in all good faith. I do not want a rerun of the renewable heat incentive, where an agreement was put in place, but the Executive rowed back on commitments already made. That is where my problem is with the amendment. I support it in broad terms, absolutely. I have no problem if any money given out to any of the major stadiums from here on in undergoes a clawback mechanism if revenue is generated from them. <BR /> <BR />I will go through a number of the points that have been made. Mr Carroll put both feet into Sinn Féin in some of his remarks, and I enjoyed that, to be honest with you.”
“We need to draw a line in the sand and set an example, so that, going forward, any public money given out by the Executive will be introduced to the clawback for those who generate revenue.”
“Time after time, nearly every nationalist MLA who gets up to speak in such a debate has to declare an interest as being affiliated with or a member of a local GAA organisation. It is no surprise, then, that they say that they want the GAA to be treated differently from any other organisation. My motion is very clear; it draws a line in the sand to say that money that has been offered out to date has gone. I was not here at that time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I am talking about new money, going forward. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the vast majority of Mr Carroll's amendment. The bit that I have trouble with is the reference to "stadia currently in construction".”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />To start off my summing up proper, I put on record my thanks to the Research and Information Service (RaISe) for the paper that it produced. It did the homework of Members. It is clear that nationalist Members did not bother reading my motion or the RaISe paper. The paper demonstrates quite well that there is a precedent in the UK. Indeed, it refers to the Scottish model and the Olympic stadium. That shows that Members do not like the messenger, did not read the motion and did not bother reading the information that was provided by RaISe. The paper is an excellent read, and I encourage everybody to take the time to read it. <BR /> <BR />On that basis, I will move forward. There is a stark reality in the House when it comes to debating Casement or any GAA matters.”
“I encourage the Member to refer that to the Speaker. <BR /> <BR />As I was saying, Principal Deputy Speaker, to start my summing up —.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. To start off —.”
“I will leave that between the Principal Deputy Speaker and —.”
“The debate has been a first for me. Principal Deputy Speaker, you made a point of order to Mr Carroll. I have not been a Member for that long, but nowhere in Standing Orders does it say that a Speaker, when presiding over a debate, can raise a point of order with a Member. You can absolutely challenge a Member, but raising a point of order with a Member does not reflect proper debate in the Chamber.”
“I challenge the GAA to sort out its own backyard and the image that it portrays to unionism.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Due to the lack of Members willing to give way, I hope to take every second, if required. <BR /> <BR />From the get-go, I assure the House that, yes, I am still opposed to Casement and am unashamedly opposed to the GAA, for the grounds that it has named after terrorists, for the atrocities that have been carried out and for the trophies that have been named after them. Those are linked to the GAA to this day.”
“It was a simple question, and I will give a simple answer.”
“Will the Member give way so that I can give a simple answer?”
“Does the Member recognise that, throughout my contribution, I said, with regard to the money that was agreed in 2011, that a line should be drawn in the sand? There is a clear distinction between money that had been agreed — no clawback — and the future moneys that I am talking about. That would be for all sports, but the flagship project is for the GAA.”
“Just for the Member's benefit, I am talking about future moneys. I have no problem in saying to the House that for any future investment that goes into Windsor or Ravenhill, once a line in the sand is drawn, clawback should be enacted.”
“<BR /> <BR />The proposition is simple: if public money underwrites that stadium and fills the gap, and if non-GAA concerts and fixtures generate substantial commercial profit, it is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable for the public to carry the cost while private bodies retain the reward. That is why we call for a legally enforceable clawback mechanism as a condition of any further public funding in order to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from non-GAA events to the public purse. <BR /> <BR />The motion calls for fairness, value for money and basic accountability to the taxpayer. I commend it to the House and look forward to the debate.”
“That lack of clarity would negatively affect organisations that have already designed business cases for current Stormont-led programmes, having acted in good faith, followed the rules and secured approvals on the basis of criteria that the Departments set. Many current projects have already negotiated funding packages, revenue models and community benefit obligations tailored to their circumstances. I make it clear that the motion relates to moneys not yet planned, allocated or, in the case of Casement, talked up at Executive level, and therefore it provides a clear line in the sand. Unfortunately, the amendment does not make that clear, and, for that reason, I cannot support it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have warned that the Government too often fail to maximise long-term value from major projects. They stress that it is not enough to build an asset; rather, mechanisms must exist to ensure that the intended public value is realised. The motion is not about opposing Casement but about protecting the taxpayer. The amendment, while well-intentioned in its desire to safeguard public investment, ultimately falls short. In referring to current and future constructions, it fails to distinguish between current and future budget provision. It therefore treats budgets that are already allocated and agreed as if they were no different from hypothetical future schemes.”