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 14 of 45.
“The motion is not radical: clawback is a standard tool of public finance. The Scottish Government's public finance manual includes charge and clawback conditions as routine safeguards where public funding creates assets capable of generating a return. That is orthodox value-for-money discipline. In 2009, for example, the Scottish Funding Council clawed back £2·88 million from Stow College, which was repaid over several years. We have other real-world precedents. For example, in London, when the publicly funded Olympic stadium was converted for commercial use, the public authority retained a contractual right to share in key commercial income streams, such as naming rights and hospitality revenues. The taxpayer was not left paying the bill while others kept the upside. That is exactly the principle in the motion that I have proposed.”
“Revenues are expected. The question is simply this: why should the taxpayer get nothing back when the taxpayer paid so much in?”
“Furthermore, the project is still priced at around £100 million more than the current money available. Therefore, this question becomes unavoidable: if there is a gap, who is expected to close it? The answer, time and time again, is the public purse. <BR /> <BR />Going beyond that, let us look at the issue of revenue. The Casement Park project literature states:”
“The question, therefore, is not whether money will be made; the question is who will benefit from it. <BR /> <BR />The scale of public funding is enormous and still growing. The project sits within the Executive's regional stadia programme. The Executive endorsed a package of up to £110 million under that programme. Stormont committed £62·5 million as far back as 2011. Now, Westminster has added a further £50 million through financial transactions capital (FTC). The Minister of Finance told the Assembly that that funding could be used only for Casement, that it does not need to be repaid to Treasury and that it comes with no further conditions attached. Public exposure increases, yet there remains no enforceable mechanism to ensure that the taxpayer sees any return.”
“It is a debate about something far more basic: public money, private profit and whether the Northern Ireland taxpayer is to be treated as an unlimited underwriter of a major commercial venue with no share in return. <BR /> <BR />The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) describes Casement as a flagship capital project — a new stadium with a capacity of around 34,500 and that includes corporate hospitality, conferencing and extensive year-round facilities. That is not simply a sports ground redevelopment; it is a major commercial venue. The motion recognises what everyone now accepts:”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I make no secret of the fact that, if Casement Park is built, you will never see me in the stands. I have profound issues with the GAA. Many people in my community share those concerns. When they hear of Casement Park, they do not recall some sporting feat. They remember the murders of Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes. They think of a sport that names clubs after the likes of Kevin Lynch, an INLA terrorist who went to jail not for encouraging fitness but for kneecapping people, denying them the ability to walk. However, this is not a debate about whether Casement Park should exist. It is not a debate about the place of the GAA. It is not a debate about sport, identity or culture.”
“You cannot consider victims' issues, get to the truth about what happened during the IRA's years of terror or ever talk about justice unless you face up to the fact that Dublin was an active participant in the terror. A number of Committee members need to recognise that fact. I trust that, as we go into the forward work programme, the Committee will delve into that issue and expose the Irish Republic's role in the terrorism that we have experienced here in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before the shipments from Libya and the introduction of Semtex, the vast majority of IRA bombs were made with Irish industrial explosives. The IRA had an endless supply of bomb-making material from the South; something with which Dublin did not concern itself. A year ago, Kenny Donaldson of the South East Fermanagh Foundation gave evidence to the Executive Office Committee, highlighting that between 550 and 570 murders that were committed during the terrorist campaign had a cross-border element in the planning and/or escape plan of those who were involved. <BR /> <BR />In spite of that, some in the House say that Dublin's woeful record is not a matter to be discussed at Stormont.”
“Since my arrival at Stormont, I have used my position on the Executive Office Committee to attempt to turn the spotlight on to the role of the Irish Republic in facilitating and sustaining 30 years of republican terrorism in Northern Ireland. The facts are undeniable. The arms trial of 1970 exposed something of Dublin's role in the formation and arming of the IRA, yet that did not damage the careers of those who were involved. For example, Charles Haughey went on to become the Irish Prime Minister in spite of having to resign from the Cabinet due to his role in the affair. House of Commons answers show that, between 1973 and 1997, there were at least 110 extradition requests made to the Irish Republic by the UK. Just eight were successful.”
“Minister, it is simply not good enough. There is no policy in place for slumps in rural roads. There is a poor interactive portal. When somebody logs a call, they do not even receive an email to say that it has been accepted, that an engineer is en route or the outcome of it. The list goes on and on. It is time for the Minister to get to grips with her Department and stop blaming others, because there is much work to do in DFI.”
“Photos of the pothole and the serious damage to the vehicle were taken, yet their claim was also turned down. DFI outrageously claims that, because the road was inspected on 23 June 2025 and no actionable defects were recorded, it is not liable. Surely, the Department cannot be allowed to absolve itself of liability on the basis of a check that was carried out five months earlier.”
“Due to the severity of the damage to multiple vehicles, the police were called and had to maintain a presence until the appropriate signage was put in place to warn other drivers. DFI turned down that constituent's claim and to this day hides behind an exemption clause in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as to why that claim was refused. I urge the Minister, who is in the Chamber, to direct that, when MLAs and constituents request basic information on why a claim has been turned down or whether any other individual was successful in claiming compensation relating to the same pothole, such information should be released. <BR /> <BR />Case number two concerns a constituent who came to see me last week. On 16 November 2025, they hit a crater that was submerged in water on the Old Frosses Road outside Cloughmills.”
“If the Department continues along the route of outsourcing, it must move to a position where, when a road is being patched, all defects must be repaired, rather than wasting money by revisiting roads multiple times when another report is logged on the portal. Time and again, contractors go back to do a patch here and a patch there: how does that pay? That policy, coupled with paying contractors to temporarily repair potholes and return at a later date to carry out a permanent repair, is bad financial management. <BR /> <BR />Excessive red tape and secrecy when people claim for damage caused by potholes due to our crumbling roads is another issue. I will mention two real-life cases. Number one relates to a North Antrim constituent who hit a pothole on 3 February 2024 on the Holywood Road in Newtownards.”
“Sporadically throwing pots of money here and there will improve the situation in the short term, but, unless a change in policy direction is enacted, we will continue to have a piecemeal approach that delivers crumbling patchwork quilts rather than the large overlays that many of our roads require. <BR /> <BR />I often wonder why a bloated and, indeed, top-heavy Civil Service continues down the road of outsourcing patching work to subcontractors, when, surely, it would achieve better value for money and higher quality by employing staff directly instead of continuing to be at the mercy of others.”
“The Member illustrates something in Mid Ulster, and I am sure that he could go to every constituency in Northern Ireland and illustrate something similar. That is the problem with the policies and shows their absurdity. Active travel has been prioritised over basic maintenance: ridiculous. <BR /> <BR />Leaving maintenance to the end of the allocation-making in the Department shows me a Department with the wrong priorities. Years of operating with a limited maintenance service has meant that, unless a defect meets a ridiculous threshold, it cannot be fixed.”
“The motion is timely because our road network is in the worst condition that it has been in during my lifetime. If it were about any other Department, the Sinn Féin Benches would be bustling, and Members on them would be leading the charge to fight back and call out the Minister for failing road users across Northern Ireland, but no: the amendment is another classic example of Sinn Féin protecting its Minister at all costs. It is time that the copy-and-paste, "Blame the Brits" Minister faced up to the fundamental problems in her Department and did something about them. <BR /> <BR />Years of prioritising active travel and environmental schemes over basic maintenance is the biggest factor in today's crumbling network.”
“and why a letter dated 25 November 2025 also went to Sinn Féin? Sinn Féin was written to, Sinn Féin was told that the billboard was illegal and Sinn Féin was asked to remove it, yet the Sinn Féin-run Department that you lead holds no response. Should people adopt the same attitude and take the same approach to parking tickets, which your Department issues?”
“Minister, will you explain to the House why, on 18 August 2023, a departmental official emailed Aidan Mathers at sinnfein.ie, stating:”
“Minister, I have profound concerns that your Department has been captured by outside forces such as the Rainbow Project. You have failed to address those concerns, even though I have asked you questions on the matter. Do you recognise that children should never be guinea pigs for an ideology or experimental medicine?”
“Minister, it is good to hear that you are making progress on tackling plastic pollution. Will you take the opportunity to update the House and enlighten us on what progress you are making on reducing the amount of raw sewage that is currently going into our waterways? I know that that issue does not sit with you, but, given that farmers are always being used as a scapegoat for the actions of Northern Ireland Water (NIW), I am interested to know what progress you have made on reducing the 7 million tons of untreated sewage that goes into our waterways each year.”
“The response to that FOI request reveals something that should shock and concern every MLA. In response, the Department stated that it does not retain draft answers and emails between officials, which are routinely destroyed. There is no audit trail of what the Minister saw, when he saw it or who caused that delay. Under section 46 of the code of practice issued under FOI law, public bodies are expected to keep proper records of key decisions and processes. That is why I have referred the response to the Information Commissioner. If Ministers can sit on questions for over a year, and then destroy the trail, accountability in the House becomes meaningless.”
“As Members are aware, questions for written answer must be answered within 10 days, yet the Health Minister has time and again shown contempt for that rule. I could cite many examples, but, for the sake of time, I will give two. A question on his plans for a palliative care strategy tabled on 24 September 2024 was answered on 12 January 2026: in not 10 days but 475 days. A question on cancer screening tabled on 5 September 2024 was answered on 11 December 2025: in not 10 days but 462 days. Other questions went unanswered for a full year until a freedom of information request was submitted to his Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is no surprise that Sinn Féin has brought this Matter of the Day to the House. Its Members are cheerleaders of the terror that we have seen the length and breadth of this country for the past 40 or 50 years. Now they believe that they are the righteous ones to stand up for Palestine Action. Given their history, their stance and their continued glorification — Mr Baker sits there smirking away; my goodness, that is the state that Northern Ireland has got into. We have terrorists in suits sitting to my left who glorify murder and killing, and it is no wonder that they are sticking up for their bedfellows in Palestine Action. Shame on the House; shame on Members on my left-hand side; and shame on anybody who supports that group.”
“Let me be clear: terrorism is not negated by geography, terror is not softened by scale, and the law should not become a balancing exercise whereby barbarity is excused because it is inconvenient to confront. <BR /> <BR />At a time when we see continued Palestinian terror violence glorified and justified on our streets, the ruling sends precisely the wrong signal: that proscription is negotiable. If the judgement stands — I trust that it will not — it will not take much imagination to see the consequences for Northern Ireland. What is to stop a judicial review arguing that the IRA's proscription should be reconsidered on similar grounds? The Government must urgently appeal the ruling and reassert that terrorist organisations are proscribed because of what they are, not because of how politically awkward it is to say so.”
“The judgement is one that I am deeply troubled about. Palestine Action is guilty of serious offences, including the attack with a sledgehammer on a female police officer that left her with serious injuries to her back. That might be Mr Carroll's version of free speech, but it is certainly not mine or that of unionism. The court has, effectively, suggested that it is not enough for an organisation to meet the statutory test for proscription. Instead, Ministers are told that they should weigh up so-called mitigation factors, including the group's size, its presence in the UK, the threat that it poses and even diplomatic considerations in the global fight against terrorism.”
“That is why the public are laughing at this place.”
“Does it believe that, when a Member seeks the handwritten note of such a meeting, the author of that note — in this case, the First Minister's principal private secretary — should then take control of the freedom of information process in the Department? I have not heard the SDLP pass any judgement or make any comment on that issue. Is that accountability, Mr O'Toole? <BR /> <BR />My goodness, we will not take any lectures from the SDLP. Last week, it was all about hurty words. Oh dear goodness, we cannot have hurty words. It was also about asking too many uncomfortable questions. We cannot ask too many uncomfortable questions that would cause unease on the Sinn Féin Benches. This week, it is about what the Minister did not say and his not showing empathy. That is what the public see.”
“Where was he to stand up for the victims when Members tried to stop this MLA speaking out in Committees? My goodness, his party was happy to censure this MLA over breathegate. It appears that, in this House, accountability is demanded only of unionists. I trust, Mr O'Toole, that you have had a word with your councillor Mr de Faoite for trying to belittle unionists last week, given that you are the custodians and the guardians of standards in public life. <BR /> <BR />Let us put the SDLP's position on standards in government to the test. Does it believe that Committee Chairs should not hold private meetings with Ministers before evidence sessions?”
“It is the same commissioner who found there to be no breach when Mr Carroll tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" on 7 October in the aftermath of the biggest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. It is the same commissioner who found Dr Steve Aiken to be in breach of the MLA code of conduct when chairing a Committee but dismissed the complaint that I lodged against the Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, stating that she could not investigate Committee Chairs. The SDLP, once again, was happy to look the other way. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, we saw it in the Chamber again last week. Mr O'Toole was very keen to name-drop me in his opening gambit, but where was he last Monday? Where was he to stand up for scrutiny?”
“Was that ever properly investigated? No. Instead, it was left to a so-called report that was produced by the head of Legal Services. The Assembly passed judgement on that affair by agreeing a motion, tabled by me, that either the report was fundamentally flawed or the First Minister misled the House. Yet, Dr McCullough was not interested, and the SDLP, it seems, is quite content to look the other way when it becomes uncomfortable for the Executive. <BR /> <BR />That is the same commissioner who found no sanction for the First Minister of no alternative when she attended the Bobby Storey funeral in west Belfast during the height of the COVID lockdown regulations.”
“— I congratulate the Minister for the stand that he took. He still should not be going to North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Let us be very clear: you talk about the Good Friday Agreement, but you were happy to ride roughshod over the principle of consent in December when you gave away governance over 300 areas of law to the EU. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at what the motion rests upon. It attacks Minister Lyons on the basis of a report written by the former Commissioner for Standards, Melissa McCullough. That is the same commissioner who refused to investigate a complaint that I lodged regarding the Michael McMonagle scandal. I remind the House: Michael McMonagle was a convicted paedophile, who was on the payroll of the First Minister, supposedly for constituency work, when, in reality, he was operating as a Sinn Féin press officer.”
“I am happy to give way to Mr O'Toole first of all.”
“The very wording of the motion has ensured that no unionist in the Chamber could ever vote for it, regardless of the ministerial breach in question.”
“No one who respects the Belfast Agreement or the principle of consent could support this motion.”
“From the get-go, there are several major problems with the motion. The first, surprisingly, given those who tabled it, goes to the heart of the Belfast Agreement. It does not simply call on the United Kingdom Government to act but demands that a programme of institutional reform be co-facilitated by the UK and Irish Governments. Furthermore, it proposes that the Assembly write not only to the Secretary of State but to the Tánaiste, who has no business in Northern Ireland's internal affairs. I remind the SDLP that the three-strand approach was never intended to give Dublin a role in the internal government of Northern Ireland. No thank you.”
“More concerning is that the truth of what lies behind the continuing refusal to release the contemporaneous note has not yet fully emerged. A step towards that truth would be the publication of the note taken during the private meeting between the First Minister and the Committee Chair — a meeting of which the Executive Office Committee has no independent record; a meeting of which the only minute was produced by the First Minister's office; and a meeting the note of which remains withheld from the public to this day. I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party has now called for the note to be published. I ask this simple question: will the Alliance Party and the SDLP follow? If Members have confidence in the standards process and in the vote that was taken last week —”
“Looking at the response online and in print, any objective observer must recognise that those words have proved to be prophetic. The supporting emails, the many messages, the phone calls and well over 1,000 new followers on Facebook in the past seven days show me whom the public support on the issue.”
“Scrutiny does not suddenly become misconduct simply because it makes a few in the Chamber feel uncomfortable. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, I turn to the public reaction to last Monday's vote. On 12 June last year, I wrote to the Committee on Standards and Privileges stating:”
“Now that the nationalist and republican alliance sanction to exclude me from the Chamber has been served, I take the opportunity to put on record a number of things about breathegate. First, I want the House to know that, when the First Minister of no alternative appeared before the Executive Office Committee last Wednesday, I again covered a number of the same questions that the Chairperson and her mates in Sinn Féin and the SDLP took great exception to and silenced me on these Benches for. To be crystal clear, it was never out of scope to ask questions at the Executive Office Committee on behalf of victims about the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of IRA men. For as long as Sinn Féin jointly heads that Department, it will never be out of scope of the Committee whose flagship is ending violence against women and girls.”
“I am quite clear that members of the public will make up their own minds: it does not matter what this place says today.”
“As I said in my point of order, that raises serious questions for the Chairperson of the Executive Office Committee. My goodness, Ms Bradshaw takes the same view as the commissioner, who produced the report, which is that the rules apply to everybody else but not to her. If rules are interpreted one way for Ministers, another way for Chairs and yet another way for Members, they are not standards; they are discretionary. <BR /> <BR />The debate is not really about me. It is about whether the Assembly believes that power should be questioned, that Ministers should be accountable and that victims should not be silenced because their stories are inconvenient. I have been told that asking those questions amounted to "improper interference" with the performance of the Assembly's functions. The videos of the Committee are online for all to see.”
“Then, Ms Bradshaw is recorded in Hansard as saying to Upper Bann's Mr Buckley:”
“I believe that the only reason that Ms Bradshaw ever submitted her complaint is because I lodged a complaint about her conduct after she held a private meeting, as Committee Chair, with the First Minister in October 2024. <BR /> <BR />I will leave aside Ms Bradshaw's condescending conduct to me on 23 October 2024 and in the weeks prior to that and look at how she addresses other MLAs in the House. Ms Bradshaw is recorded in Hansard as interrupting my North Antrim colleague Mr Burrows, as he spoke about how he lived behind armoured glass, under threat from terrorists. What did Ms Bradshaw say? She told him to:”
“<BR /> <BR />Another finding in the report is that I breached rule 15 of the Members' code of conduct. That relates to a remark that I have conceded that I should not have made and for which I apologised on the day. I believe that that apology was accepted by Ms Bradshaw, but I will make two points about it. First, nowhere in the report does the commissioner or the Committee attempt to address the question of why that apology was accepted in that October and only became an issue three months later. Why was Ms Bradshaw never asked, by either the commissioner or the Committee, to explain that delay? To resurrect it months later is political; it is a punishment by ambush.”
“Show me the Standing Order that defines how many questions is too many. When I tried to get in during an Alliance Member's contribution, she did not take my intervention. That is the question that I was going to put to her. <BR /> <BR />Political speech cannot be punished on the basis of a rule that no Member could ever understand in advance. That was left to the discretion of the Chairperson, who could not hide her disdain for me when one of her establishment colleagues — one of her mates in Sinn Féin — had to leave the Committee when I came to this place, and she was faced with someone with principles and a backbone. That is a rare combination in politicians, I know, but unionism is finding more and more people with those as the mandate goes on.”
“One must ask why only this Member is being sanctioned for the questions that were asked that day. Is it OK to ask one or two questions that make the establishment feel uncomfortable, but if you ask nine of them, it is a case of, "Oh no. That's a breach of the rules"? What is the limit to my article 10 rights? <BR /> <BR />I did not have the opportunity to access legal advice during the process, but I am forever grateful to my barrister, Emma McIlveen, for providing a legal opinion on the report. That legal opinion was shared with all Members in advance of the debate. The House knows, therefore, that that is one of the questions that she addresses in her opinion. Even if you accept that the questions should not have been asked — I certainly do not hold that view — nowhere in the report is that issue addressed by the commissioner.”
“they have another thing coming. I have no apology to make for asking those questions. I would ask them again, and I will until we get answers. I will leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions about the basket case that this place has become, if asking those questions amounts to "improper interference". Some may point out that Ms Bradshaw and others on the Committee asked questions of a similar nature, but, sure, that does not fit the commissioner's narrative.”
“If the House cannot tolerate someone asking questions on behalf of a victim of IRA sexual violence to a Minister who pontificates about violence against women and girls, I simply do not know. <BR /> <BR />Look at it: I was asking questions to a Minister who has responsibility for victims' issues and is in charge of legislation to address harm caused by historical abuse. If I cannot ask those questions in here, I fear that the House has no moral compass and no future. If Members think that voting for the sanction will stop me asking those questions, which, in the words of the commissioner's report, amounted to:”
“I say this directly to the SDLP: that is what you are voting for today. The Executive Office's flagship strategy is ending violence against women and girls, yet we cannot ask the First Minister, who is leading on that strategy, about the rape of a citizen of this Province. We have an office that has a duty in statute to look after the interests of victims, yet we cannot ask the First Minister about the links between her party and the IRA, as described in Máiría's book. Did anyone who will vote for the motion even bother to reach out and speak to Máiría after reading the report? I did, simply because she had been in contact with my office specifically on the issue of Mrs O'Neill's hypocrisy over ending violence against women and girls.”
“Absolutely. I will come on to the valid point that the Member has raised. <BR /> <BR />Looking back, I ask this: if Mrs O'Neill should not have been asked questions about McMonagle in the meeting that day, when would we have had the opportunity to challenge her? She was the employer, and he was the employee. That was the opportunity to put those questions to her. <BR /> <BR />It is claimed that other questions that I asked breached the code. Everyone who votes to accept the report today believes that I deserve sanction for asking:”