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 18 of 45.
“Oh yes, we needed a Climate Commissioner and an Irish Language Commissioner, with all the legislation and expense that goes with those roles. How did we get by before without either? <BR /> <BR />We have Ministers who cannot live within the budgets that they have. They routinely overspend, send begging letters to London and blame everyone else but themselves for their failures. Do you know what? I have never heard the Opposition complain about that mentality. We cannot manage the money that we have been given, yet the SDLP is asking that the Executive be given the ability to take more from our hard-working households and businesses. That is some election pitch that the SDLP has made today, because it is essentially what the motion proposes. <BR /> <BR />The TUV has been absolutely clear.”
“I am looking forward to 2029 when we finally get rid of the Labour Party. I will not put all my trust in the next Government. I will have to wait to see what they deliver, but they cannot be any worse than what we have. <BR /> <BR />Only the other week, the nationalist/republican/Alliance side of the Executive supported a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education, yet the SDLP wants us to trust the Executive with new fiscal powers. They cannot manage the powers that they already have. Westminster is extraordinarily generous to Northern Ireland, with £1·24 spent here for every £1·00 that is spent in England, yet the Executive still cannot live within their means. Then, of course, the SDLP agrees with the serial wastage here.”
“How could anyone outside the Executive look at this failing, divided and self-interested Administration and think, "What those chancers really need is more power"?”
“At first glance, the motion appears to be shrewd. It was delivered with great gusto by the star performer, Mr O'Toole. In any normal, functioning government, who could oppose long-term planning or financial certainty? All that we have to do, however, is look behind the words in the Order Paper. The real thrust of the motion is a demand that the Executive be armed with new devolved fiscal powers. Normally, Opposition parties highlight the failings of the Government and warn of the dangers of granting them more authority, but, oh no, not our Opposition; Not the SDLP, which yearns for the return of ministerial trappings and is so preoccupied with being constructive that it has still not grasped how to be an Opposition who will finally land a punch.”
“However, there is a difference in this: the Corinthians knew what they were eating, but parents in Northern Ireland simply do not. That is the heart of the matter. Parents should not have to submit an FOI request to find out what their children are being fed. We need transparency, honesty and a system that respects parental choice rather than hiding behind market availability and supply chains. Therefore, I call on the Minister to instruct the EA to introduce clear labelling and full transparency in school menus and ensure that non-halal options are genuinely —”
“In other words, "If you do not like halal meat, no problem: there is the salad bar for you". That is simply not good enough. <BR /> <BR />Traditional halal practices require the animal to be conscious at the moment of slaughter, so, beyond religious objections, there are perfectly legitimate ethical and animal welfare concerns held by many families. There are also those who believe, reasonably, that religious rituals of which they have no part should not determine how their food is prepared, especially in publicly funded schools. <BR /> <BR />This is not a new dilemma. The apostle Paul addressed Christians in Corinth who were concerned about eating meat associated with religious practices that they rejected. The point that he made was simple: conscience matters, and people should not be forced into practices that violate it.”
“Remarkably, when asked what alternatives are available for families who do not accept that method of slaughter, the EA responded:”
“Last week, a concerned parent shared with me their freedom of information response from the Education Authority (EA) on the use of halal meat in our schools. The FOI response shows that neither parents nor even schools have been told that meat served in school canteens may be halal-compliant. The EA admits that it has no tracking, no monitoring and no record-keeping of how much halal meat is being provided to our children. Parents can complain and request alternatives, but how are they meant to complain about something that they have never been told about? <BR /> <BR />Halal meat may be served in our schools, but the EA does not know how much. It has carried out no consultation, and parents have received no guidance or even been given the courtesy of a warning.”
“The Alliance Party always tries to distance itself from being a nationalist party, so I will look at how it and, indeed, the other unionist parties vote on the motion.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. It is, indeed, timely to put that on the record during the debate. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland's integration and place in the Union will be secured only by restoring our full and equal place in the United Kingdom economically, constitutionally and democratically. Our future must be tied to the UK internal market, not to a political project that uses data to blur constitutional lines. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by referring to Ms Armstrong's comment that the census is the "story of who we are". Are we part of the UK, or are we part of an all-Ireland? A joint census says an all-Ireland, so I look forward to seeing how the parties vote today.”
“Instead, the focus is on shaping Northern Ireland around the needs, ambitions and preferences of an all-island agenda. TUV has been consistent and unapologetic in telling the truth: Northern Ireland's prosperity will not be secured through deeper integration with the Republic.”
“Northern Ireland is not a province of the Irish Republic, and TUV will not support any amendment that suggests that it should be. <BR /> <BR />The UUP amendment may use softer language, but it operates on exactly the same assumption. It still places Northern Ireland inside an all-island economic frame, and it still invites the Minister for the Economy to shape strategy around the dynamics of an all-island situation rather than the realities of the United Kingdom internal market. Neither amendment acknowledges the real barrier to our economic development: the fact that Northern Ireland is segregated and separated from its biggest market by a border within our own country. Neither amendment mentions the democratic affront of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change.”
“It is not about economic fairness or balanced comparison; it is simply the latest repetition of the nationalist argument that the answer to everything is more alignment with Dublin. <BR /> <BR />By the way, that does not say a great deal for these institutions, which, the SDLP says, it was so pivotal in delivering, does it? Why does the SDLP not look at the comparisons with England? In England, the median wait for referral for treatment across cancer pathways is 14·8 weeks. In the Irish Republic, however, studies have shown that there are postcode lottery variations, signalling longer and more uneven delays. It is not the Republic that we need to look to but the rest of the UK. If Northern Ireland is as bad as the SDLP says it is, it is because of these failing institutions, not the Union.”
“A spreadsheet should not be used as a stepping stone to the break-up of the Union, yet that is precisely how the motion seeks to deploy and use the data. Everywhere else in the motion we find the same coded language: "shared challenges", "all-island economy" and "joint census publications". It is not a statistical analysis but a political positioning designed to shift the centre of gravity away from the United Kingdom towards Dublin. <BR /> <BR />We then come to the SDLP amendment, which frames Northern Ireland as lagging behind the Irish Republic. It invites "structured partnership" between Stormont Departments and the Government of a foreign state. It casts the Republic as the model and Northern Ireland as the poor relation that must catch up.”
“What we have before us is not an innocent or technical motion about census data but yet another example of the steady and relentless attempt to normalise an all-island policy framework within the workings of the devolved institutions. Let me be clear from the outset that the TUV will oppose the motion and the two amendments. <BR /> <BR />The motion takes a joint census publication and turns it into a political manifesto. Rather than ground Northern Ireland's future in the United Kingdom, in our internal market, in our democratic structures and in our constitutional guarantee, the motion invites Departments "to take stock" of an all-island framing of social and economic life. Workers crossing the border is not a mandate for constitutional re-engineering. Commuter flows are not a justification for policy harmonisation.”
“I thank the Minister for his clear answer to the House. Minister, do you agree that the judgement is a clear case of judicial overreach and that there are numerous countries that have signed up to the ECHR whose RE curriculum is expressly Christian, such as Poland? Regardless of precedents, does the Minister also agree that this is another good reason for the whole of the UK to quit the ECHR?”
“Minister, workers on the front line tell me that the number of delirium beds is not adequate to meet need: there are only six such beds in the Northern Trust. People have to wait in acute hospitals for a considerable length of time before they get a bed that is appropriate to meet their needs. As our population ages, the pressures on that area will continue to grow. Minister, does the current number of beds meet the current patient need? If not, what will you do in the short term to address that?”
“Does the First Minister think that a fanatic who believes that the Irish language legislation does not go far enough and is or, at least, was a card-carrying member of Sinn Féin is the right person to hold the post of Irish Language Commissioner? How can someone with that record enjoy unionist support?”
“Religious institutions that claim to take no view on the existence of God are in fact teaching that his existence is irrelevant. Our schools should always teach morality, right and wrong, but it is impossible to do so without acknowledging God as the source of that morality. If that happens, the moral framework is severed from its roots. <BR /> <BR />The task now falls squarely to our Education Minister. He must reaffirm the statutory requirement that RE be taught on a scriptural basis and ensure that collective worship in schools retains its Christian character, as required by the law.”
“The judgement did not strike down that legislation. The law still mandates that the foundation of RE in Northern Ireland is scriptural and Christian. That reflects the historic, cultural and moral foundations of our education system. <BR /> <BR />Christian teaching has shaped our schools, our law and our society. It is no accident that the law requires RE to be firmly rooted in Holy Scripture. The Bible is not one optional voice among many but the bedrock of moral order. There is a misplaced notion that schools must move towards a neutral or multifaith model. Regrettably, that information has even come from some who claim to represent the interests of faith in society. There is no such thing as religious neutrality.”
“Now that ethos has come under attack. However, it is vital to underline one critical fact that seems to have been lost in much of the commentary: the law has not changed. Article 21 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 remains. It requires that religious education (RE) in controlled schools must be:”
“The judgement by the Supreme Court was the final stage in a calculated assault on the foundations of the controlled sector of education. It is often forgotten that the controlled sector did not emerge out of thin air; it is the product of what used to be the school system run by Protestant Churches. That system was handed over to the state following Lord Londonderry's 1930 Education Act. Churches were promised that the schools would retain a broadly Christian ethos. Church and state recognised that there was a duty to, as scripture puts it:”
“It is about rule makers who, in full view of the TV cameras, became rule breakers. It is about law-abiding citizens being denied a basic funeral while a blood-soaked terrorist was given a grand send-off. The fact that Lady Hallett joins a long list of figures in officialdom who cannot bring themselves to say so does her no credit; in fact, it does a gross disservice to ordinary people.”
“The latest findings simply continue the tired pattern of evasion. <BR /> <BR />The truth is this: Sinn Féin was flagrantly hypocritical and at the heart of the breach, and everyone knows that. Michelle O'Neill did not merely attend: she led; she posed; she set an example that thousands followed; and then she claimed that she did nothing wrong. What was the response of officialdom? No accountability, just more excuses. The latest report tells us once again that no one can rely on people being held responsible. The public are not fools: they see what this is. They know exactly what it means when the law is flexible for some and rigid for others. They know what it means when senior republicans can breach restrictions with impunity while ordinary people are criminalised for far less. <BR /> <BR />This is a scandal about two-tier policing.”
“It was not a spontaneous act of grief but a meticulously organised, tightly choreographed display of IRA power, with Sinn Féin figures at its centre, yet, time after time, in report after report, the establishment has twisted itself in knots to avoid the obvious, which is that the law was applied differently depending on whom people were. Republican leaders knew exactly what they were doing and that the authorities would not confront them.”
“Once again, we are confronted with the latest feeble finding about what was, by any objective measure, one of the greatest scandals of lockdown: the IRA Storey funeral. Let us remind ourselves of what happened. While ordinary people in Northern Ireland were being denied the right to stand at a graveside, being denied the right to comfort their loved ones and, in some cases, even being denied the right to say goodbye, thousands gathered on the streets of Belfast for a full-scale republican show of strength.”
“Minister, in dealing with the licence acquisition process, paragraph 4.2 of the review report recounts multiple reports from interviewees, which are sufficient in number and diversity as to make it credible, that dealing with objections often involved, to put it in simple terms, paying off objectors with cash. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the allegations made in the report?”
“Minister, the EA's handling of the amalgamation of the three existing schools to form Causeway Academy has been extremely poor. What commitment will you give to finding a permanent single-site solution for the school? Will you commit to attending a cross-party meeting with the principal designate and local MLAs to try to resolve the list of outstanding issues ahead of its opening in 2026?”
“Minister, picking up on your proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land, I note that a recent planning application for a new build for Slemish College in Ballymena had to be withdrawn, as neither the Education Department nor the Infrastructure Department would pay for the new road to open up land. If you take the lead on the project to develop public land, will you take the view that interested Departments need to share the infrastructure costs to open up land to ensure that it can be developed for housing, schools and regeneration projects and ensure that sites such as that at Ballee Road West will not lie dormant due to the Executive continuing to work in silos?”
“Minister, under your vacant rating plan, you say that your policy could raise £20 million. How much of the £20 million, do you estimate, will be net after administration and enforcement costs? Will that figure simply be added to the uncollected rates debt?”
“Will you also outline what safeguards exist to prevent ministerial overreach when issuing directions to bodies such as Invest NI?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your ruling yesterday that the Economy Minister's decision was significant and controversial, I wish to draw to the Assembly's attention an important clarification letter. Jim Allister MP has received a letter from the Secretary of State in which Mr Benn makes it explicitly clear that international relations are a reserved matter and that negotiations on trade with Israel are conducted by the UK Government on behalf of all parts of the UK. The subject on which the Minister purported to act therefore lies outside her legal competence. In light of that clarification, will you consider the procedural implications for ministerial authority and whether the Assembly was misled as to the scope of devolved powers in that area?”
“Add to that the continued regulatory constraints of the protocol and the Windsor framework and you have a fleet that is exposed on every side, scientifically, economically and politically. <BR /> <BR />We need to know what assessment Mr Muir has made of the combined impact of those cuts. What defence of Northern Ireland's share has been mounted? Let us be clear, Mr Muir: if those proposals proceed unchallenged, and if your Department fails to act, the devastation for the fishing industry will be real and unrepairable.”
“Those cuts mean something very simple for crews in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. They mean that boats are tied up, income is slashed and processors are running idle. Once a vessel is sold off, a processor closes its doors or a skilled team is broken up, the industry cannot simply be switched back on again when the science changes. The capacity is gone, the skills are gone and the supply chain is gone, and the fishing community is left hollowed out. <BR /> <BR />This crisis has been compounded by a legacy of disadvantage. Vessels cannot simply stream to alternative grounds. Fuel costs, long transits, crewing pressures and the realities of the Irish Sea make that impossible.”
“Northern Ireland's fishing industry is standing on the edge of a cliff. Unless there is a swift and decisive intervention, we may soon witness the collapse of one of our oldest and proudest but most vulnerable industries. Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea issued its latest scientific advice. It proposes a staggering 70% reduction in the total allowable catch of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic in 2026. At the same time, when it comes to nephrops in the Irish Sea's functional unit 15, which are the lifeblood of our small and medium-sized vessels, the advice is for a 35% cut from just over 10,000 tonnes to 6,493 tonnes. <BR /> <BR />Those are not minor adjustments, but seismic shocks that hit two species on which Northern Ireland's fleet most depends.”
“Well, Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be very well apt to tell me whether the right term is "Sinn Féin/IRA" or "IRA/Sinn Féin" —”
“It needs unionists who refuse to implement North/South institutions as normal while our east-west institutions and our links are being absolutely trashed day by day. It needs unionists who do not go into government with IRA/Sinn Féin after winning seats on the basis of a —.”
“We have the bogeyman once again: Keir Starmer. I hope that, come 2029, Keir Starmer will not be in office. I am clear, Mr Brett, Mr Buckley and Mr Martin, that, if it is a choice between the protocol and being ruled from London, this place should not exist. If you have no leverage — you might shake your head and think that you have got material for a TikTok video — very good; that is grand — but, my goodness, you are sitting with Sinn Féin/IRA and trying to say "Starmer or Stormont". That does not wash, because, come 2029, Labour will be nowhere near 10 Downing Street. <BR /> <BR />Unionism needs more than rhetoric, but it is rhetoric that we hear. It needs unionists who really mean it when they say that they will not administer the Irish Sea border. It needs unionists who will not operate EU law.”
“The motion is not a challenge to the foundations of the framework. It is more political theatre, condemning with one hand but complying with the other. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give way, Mr Brett.”
“The Windsor framework is the protocol. EU law still governs vast areas of life here, and the Irish Sea border still operates every day, yet the DUP Ministers sit in office and implement precisely what, they once said, no unionist could touch. <BR /> <BR />The motion is not bold. It is not radical.”
“The House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee tells us that the so-called democratic safeguards were oversold. That is a polite way of saying to the public that they were lied to. My goodness, who lied to the public? However, nothing captures the contradiction more starkly than the DUP's Gordon Lyons, who said this in a DUP statement that is on its website to this very day:”
“and that our place in the UK internal market was restored. Today, as the motion rightly outlines and reminds us, Marks and Spencer tells us that 3,500 products require daily checks, accompanied by paperwork thick enough to choke a horse. The FSB tells us that small firms are drowning.”
“An non-binding motion here today and the videos that will be produced from the debate do not absolve them from the lies that their party told. <BR /> <BR />The system is unbearably complex. The framework imposes costs and delays. The democratic deficit remains. EU law still applies. The DUP, however, told the public that the arguments on those issues had been transformed. Anyone who said anything or who dissented from that message was simply dismissed as a dead-end unionist. Let me remind the House what was said about the deal. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, told the public that the proposals removed the border, that there would be:”
“At the outset, I put on record that I will be voting for the motion, just in case that message gets lost during my remarks. <BR /> <BR />The motion admits that the Windsor framework is fundamentally harmful, burdens business, diverts trade and creates a democratic deficit and that tinkering at the edges will not fix it. All of that is correct, and I agree with the wording of the motion. What is astonishing, however, is that the Members whose names appear under the motion in the Order Paper are in a party that is implementing all of that through the Executive every single day. I remind Members from the party to my right that they won their seats on the basis of a manifesto that rejected devolution under the protocol.”
“Minister, given Sinn Féin's well-documented historical links to paramilitary and international terrorist organisations, will you share with the House the specific evidence that you relied on when deciding that your Department of all Departments is in a position to lecture anyone on ethical international engagement?”
“I welcome the Minister's proposals to generate savings on the amount that is spent on emergency accommodation. I am mindful of the neighbours who live beside the houses used for emergency accommodation. The issue of tenants causing problems comes up time and time again, and, if concerns about tenants of the units are raised, will they be moved on from the emergency accommodation so that new and deserving people can go into them?”
“Paragraph 7 of your statement deals with matters that relate to the freedom of information code of practice. Currently, it is not possible to FOI the North/South Ministerial Council, yet we pay millions of pounds each year for it and its tentacles. What steps are being taken to open that body to scrutiny in order to permit questions to be asked and answered through FOI?”
“That is why the amendment calls on the Prime Minister to withdraw the plans entirely. <BR /> <BR />Protect the rights and privacy of every citizen of the United Kingdom. That is not about right or left. It is about a fundamental principle of British identity: that the state's power must always be limited and that the individual must always be free. Let the Assembly send a clear and united message to London, Belfast and every corner of our United Kingdom that we reject the digital ID scheme and we reject the creeping hand of state intrusion. Mindful of Orwell's warning, we say with quiet resolve that we will not allow our society to drift inch by inch towards a world where movement is logged and every life is watched. We stand today for freedom, and I trust that all Members will get behind the amendment and back it.”
“The amendment recognises that risk. It warns of the misuse of citizens' personal data and defends the principle that privacy is not a privilege granted by government but an inherent right of free men and women. <BR /> <BR />That point is entirely missing from the motion, and I think that we all know why. The original motion was not motivated by a defence of personal liberty. When has Sinn Féin ever shown genuine concern for human rights? Its motion is about something else. It is about advancing a narrow nationalist agenda and forcing yet more divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of our United Kingdom. Freedom is not something to be carved up or confined by region. If digital ID cards are wrong for Belfast, they are equally wrong for Birmingham. Freedom does not stop at Larne.”
“"A very heavy heart": that is an admission that there is a change in policy by the Alliance Party. <BR /> <BR />I go back to the British character. A mandatory ID scheme changes that. It is not simply about convenience; it is a database of identities. Once built, it becomes an instrument that future Governments could use in ways that we cannot foresee. If history and experience teach us anything, it is that such tools are rarely left unused. George Orwell wrote 'Nineteen Eighty-four'' not as a prophecy but as a warning to us all about what happens when the state knows everything about its citizens. No one is suggesting that the UK has become Orwell's dystopia, but, when government starts to build the machinery that makes such control possible, even in the name of efficiency, that is precisely when we must stand up and speak out.”