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 2 of 45.
“Whatever the House decides in relation to my amendment, the law is already clear. Men have no business being held in the same prison accommodation as women. That is not just my opinion; it is the position of the highest court in Scotland when dealing with a similar question. Most significantly, it is the position of our legal framework. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at the guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners, which has been mentioned in today's debate. Paragraph 2 of that guidance states that people's gender identities can be different from the sex that they were assigned at birth. The solution that the current guidance has in order to get around that idea is to house prisoners who identify — identify— as female in female accommodation. What did Lady Ross's judgement say about similar guidance in Scotland?”
“What has it got to say about the issue? Part 10 of the 1995 rules deals specifically with women prisoners. The opening rule in Part 10, rule 90(1), addresses the question before us today:”
“Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the For Women Scotland case, the words "man" and "woman" in that context refer to biological sex. That has sent the woke brigade into a tailspin ever since. <BR /> <BR />Of course, Lady Ross is referring to the rules on prison accommodation in Scotland, but the words "man" and "woman" in that context refer to biological sex. Do we have a similar rule? Is it spelt out in legislation? Yes, indeed it is. I draw Members' attention to the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, which is a statutory rule made under section 13 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. It is not guidance; it is the law. It is something that sits above any other document produced by the Justice Department or the Northern Ireland Prison Service on the issue.”
“I did not recognise it at the time, but I am indebted to the long-winded speeches by my North Antrim colleagues, which ensured that the Consideration Stage debate lasted for the time that it has. Now that I come to speak to my amendment, the arguments that I present in the Chamber are significantly more robust than they would have been prior to Friday's ruling. I say that because we debate the amendment at a particularly opportune moment, as, just last Friday, Scotland's highest civil court, the Court of Session, handed down its verdict in a case brought by For Women Scotland on the very issue of whether men should be accommodated in female prison spaces. The answer from Scotland was clear and emphatic. <BR /> <BR />Let me read from paragraph 181 of the judgement:”
“We have already heard the ideology train in full flow this afternoon. Let me be clear at the outset that amendment No 97 is based not on ideology but on biological reality and that those who will not support it are following their ideology and their vision of events. They are certainly not following the biological reality that we see and that the person with common sense on the ground — the Christian, conservative person from Northern Ireland — sees. Members will knock on doors in a number of years and find that they are out of touch with what the people of Northern Ireland want. <BR /> <BR />I will speak primarily to amendment No 97, which I tabled.”
“I will not be behind the door in raising those issues when the time comes, but, for now, I simply salute victim A and victim B for the courage that they have shown in coming forward and seeing this through to the end, ensuring that justice has been delivered and that the predator will no longer walk the streets but do the time that he deserves. He will not hurt — he cannot hurt — anyone. He is in the place where he should be, where he should have been years ago.”
“I trust that the victims will find some form of closure on the back of yesterday's verdict. These are difficult times for them — who knows who else will come forward in the coming days? — but I trust that they know that justice has been delivered. I trust that other victims will take courage from what they have witnessed in the past weeks and from what happened yesterday, with the delivery of those damning verdicts. <BR /> <BR />The coming days will raise profound questions about the impact that the scandal has had on politics and, indeed, on the very existence of this place.”
“Like all Members who have spoken, I pay tribute to victim A and victim B and to the courage that they have shown to ensure that justice was delivered. The two women had the courage to come forward to tell their stories and to seek justice after years of the most wicked and depraved abuse. We all need to acknowledge their courage and fortitude. That is the one bright spot in the darkness and evil that has been exposed in past weeks and that rightly ended in yesterday's damning verdicts. <BR /> <BR />The light arising in the darkness is that the justice system delivered for victims. Donaldson was not just one of the most powerful people in Northern Ireland; he rose to the top of UK politics. He was an MP, a knight and a privy counsellor. He was held accountable for the evil crimes that he committed against children.”
“Nothing was too much of a bother; they went away and gathered the information that members sought. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee. We may have our differences most weeks, but she approached the legislation in a very sensitive way, which was good for the Committee as it allowed it to get its teeth into the Bill. All members, past and present, worked together to try to ensure that we have the best Bill possible. I welcome the debate this evening. I am minded to back Mr Carroll's amendments at this stage, and I look forward to the next stage of the legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am happy to support amendment No 12 on the basis that, if somebody were born in one of those institutions and was admitted back in at a later date to give birth, that person — it is only a small group of people — should be allowed to receive two payments. <BR /> <BR />We are making progress. I am disappointed that more has not been done on the workhouses. More work needs to be done in that regard, but I recognise that, because of the modular approach that is being taken and the flexibility that that provides, those people can be included at a later date. I highlight the testimony in that respect. There are ways in which to identify who should be included and who should not. <BR /> <BR />Like some other Committee members have done, I place on record my thanks to the Committee staff, who faithfully served members' requests.”
“Amendment No 11 concerns the posthumous date. Time after time, in evidence session after evidence session, the big thing that was raised by victims and survivors and adult adoptees was the inclusion of a posthumous date. As I said at Consideration Stage, I am of the opinion that there should not be a posthumous date at all, but I welcome the progress that we will make by moving from a date in 2011 to one in 1953. Although other Members have included caveats in their remarks and said that they do not want to divide the House, I have a very clear moral compass when it comes to what I have heard. The scheme should not include a posthumous date, but I will support the amendment to insert the 1953 date into the Bill. That will be significant progress in acknowledging the hurt that has been caused.”
“Those are my comments on amendment No 10.”
“I accept it and understand the point that the junior Minister has made. Indeed, that is why the Chair of the Committee proposed the modular approach, which I agree with. I fully accept that, but, while I am in the position to do so, I am putting on record the fact that, going back to the genesis and the heart of the legislation, it is for an admission-based scheme regarding historical injustices. A group of people who were in the workhouses need to be identified, whether through the inquiry or the amendments, if they are passed today, to ensure that nobody is left out. Let us face it: if those who were in the workhouses are not included at this stage, they will never be included. We will never come back to this issue once we have a second tranche of legislation about the specific abuses that people experienced.”
“I am not taking away from the Bill that we have been working hard on and that has nearly reached Final Stage, but that testimony tells me that there is a cohort of people who are not included. If this is a standardised payment that is intentionally designed to acknowledge that particular historical injustice, we have not got everybody. Those who were in the workhouses should be included. <BR /> <BR />As we move forward, therefore, I am minded to back Mr Carroll's amendments. More work could and should be done, and, in light of the letter that came to Committee members today, at this late stage, I simply do not accept that there is no way of ensuring that the Bill can still progress while we look to narrow down those —.”
“I thank the Chair for her intervention, which brings me nicely to the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report. My understanding is that, when the independent panel was last before the Executive Office Committee, panel members said that it was possible to distinguish between married and unmarried mothers in workhouses. The testimony on page 4 of the report states:”
“Mothers in workhouses experienced the very same trauma. They experienced the same treatment as those who will be eligible for redress under the legislation that we are passing, but they will be treated differently.”
“Some people might take from that, "Well, there is nothing that we can do for those in workhouses", but I am of the opinion that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are recognising that there was a cohort of people in the workhouses who should fall under the scheme. Let us face it: go back to the genesis and the very heart of the scheme. What was it all about? Why was it designed? I will read another paragraph:”
“I will try to keep my remarks brief this evening. Initially, I will talk to amendment Nos 10, 11 and 12. Fundamentally, one needs to ask what the scheme is for. I will start by looking at Gerry Carroll's amendments. I will read a passage from the letter that has been referred to today, which we received from the First Minister and the deputy first Minister. Under the heading "Legal and workability concerns", the letter states:”
“I still believe that there is a case for the records that can be moved centrally to be looked after by PRONI to ensure a more slick and efficient system, instead of each trust having a catalogue and those records being located across a number of locations. Prior to the commencement of the inquiry, all records need to digitised and made readily available so that, when people go looking for them, either for the inquiry or for redress, they are easily accessible and it will not hold up the inquiry or hold up those seeking redress.”
“I fear that, for some victims and survivors, that may become the defining frustration of the entire process. Many have waited decades for answers, yet there remains a very real risk that, once the legislation is enacted, the records needed to provide those answers will not be available. In that sense, there is a danger that legislation has been introduced before the underlying problem with records in the trusts has been appropriately addressed. <BR /> <BR />I remain of the view that much more work is required to identify, preserve, catalogue and, where possible, reconstruct the documentary trail upon which so many cases will depend.”
“That goes to the very heart of whether the legislation can deliver what many victims and survivors have been promised, because an inquiry can only follow the evidence that exists and can be readily obtained. If crucial documents cannot be located, have deteriorated, are beyond use or were never properly retained in the first place, the inquiry's ability to establish the full truth will inevitably be constrained, and it may prove to be impossible in some instances. That is why amendment No 6 matters so much. The Executive are effectively acknowledging that there will be circumstances in which evidence sought by the inquiry cannot be produced, and, where a reasonable excuse exists for that failure, it is important to have that documented.”
“<BR /> <BR />We are told that the South Eastern Trust has identified and catalogued more than 1,200 historical adoption files, yet many of the associated registers have been assessed as fragile. Nor is the position across the trusts in Northern Ireland consistent, and that concerns me. The state of the records differs from trust to trust and, in some instances, still remains unclear. That is why the Committee found itself discussing matters such as access to records, the preservation of historical documents, engagement with the Department of Health and the need for adequate resources to assist people seeking information about their past.”
“We are dealing with records that, in the majority of cases, predate the digital age, but I want to focus my remarks on the access that we will have to, and the completeness of, the trust records, which are indeed pivotal to the inquiry. What do we know of those? We know that they are dispersed across the five health trusts, with many located in storage across multiple sites in each of the trust areas. Some have been catalogued and some have not. Some have been digitised and some still have not. Evidence presented to the Committee only last week illustrated the scale of the challenge that the trusts face to get their house in order prior to the inquiry.”
“Members outside the Committee might ask why such an amendment is necessary. The answer highlights what may prove to be one of the greatest weaknesses in the legislation before us here today: access to records. Throughout Committee Stage, we heard repeated warnings about the condition, accessibility and completeness of the historical records on which the inquiry will depend. I believe that all bar one of the religious orders have engaged with PRONI, which now holds the vast majority of the records. Only time will tell how complete those records are, as people start to come forward to request their personal records.”
“Amendment Nos 4 and 5 will ensure that one of those excuses cannot be cross-border, and that even information held outside this jurisdiction can be sought, attained and part of the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 refers to requiring the capture of:”
“Like the other members of the Committee have done, I start by thanking the victims and survivors who have engaged with the Committee throughout the process. Some of the lived experience that was relayed to the Committee was very challenging to hear. It was certainly heartfelt, and that came across. Those people spoke for not just themselves but for all victims and survivors who have suffered abuse. I also thank those who sent in consultation responses and the vast number of those who attended the round-table sessions. <BR /> <BR />I will limit my remarks on group 1 to amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6, particularly to the circumstances in which evidence may not be provided because there is a reasonable excuse for not doing so.”
“Over the years, we have heard much in the House about transparency, reform and restoring public confidence, yet, when legislation was introduced to tackle precisely those issues, many of the parties now expressing concern voted to kill the Bill at the first opportunity. In 2021, when the SDLP had the opportunity to do something about those issues in law rather than through a non-binding motion, as it is doing today, it chose to do nothing. It chose to vote it down. <BR /> <BR />Recent appointments to the Invest NI board have once again shown that cronyism is alive and well in Sinn Féin. Be assured that those will not be the last jobs for the boys, going by Sinn Féin's track record of abusing public appointments in other organisations to feather the nests of those boyos.”
“Long-standing Members of the Assembly will know that the SDLP also has questions to answer on the matter. Members may recall that, in 2021, Jim Allister introduced the Political Appointments Bill. That Bill sought to address many of the concerns that are now being expressed in the Chamber and would have provided an opportunity, through scrutiny and amendment, to strengthen the provisions further, if Members had so wished. What happened, however? The SDLP joined Sinn Féin and its little helpers in Alliance in voting down the Bill at Second Stage. It would not even allow it to proceed to further consideration in Committee. Perhaps, during the winding-up speech, the SDLP will clarify for us why it took that position. Those are questions that the party that tabled the motion should answer.”
“I wonder whether he, like the First Minister of "no alternative", still has no remorse for his actions on that day. When, last week, I asked the Minister for the Economy about that appointment, Ms Archibald still had not clarified the skill set that the former IRA man Peter Lynch brings to economic development that justifies his sitting on the board of Invest NI. I do not believe that appointments such as those, to positions that attract remuneration of around £15,000 a year for a part-time role, can reasonably be viewed as anything other than jobs for the boyos. In Mr Lynch's case, it is also an insult to the thousands of victims of IRA terrorism across the Province. <BR /> <BR />Public confidence in appointments should concern not only the Executive parties.”
“Public appointments to arm's-length bodies have been a matter of controversy in recent days, and rightly so. Back in April, we saw the appointment of former Sinn Féin Finance Minister Martin Millar to the board of Invest NI. Earlier this month, Peter Lynch joined him on the very same board. Members will be aware that Mr Lynch was a passenger in a vehicle that was intercepted by the security forces at Boucher Crescent while on its way to attack an RUC workshop in west Belfast. Lynch was in possession of a pistol that, the court was told, he attempted to kick away from the vehicle when it was stopped. <BR /> <BR />When sentencing those involved to 24 years imprisonment in 1991, the judge remarked that they had shown no remorse for their actions.”
“Updating the draft framework on race relations will make not one bit of difference to the tensions that currently exist in many working-class communities across Northern Ireland. At what point will the Northern Ireland Executive start listening to those communities and do something about the problem of illegal immigration and of people using the porous border to come to Northern Ireland to claim asylum?”
“Does the Finance Minister not accept that, to strengthen the position in the argument that he makes, this Executive need to get their own house in order before going and simply asking for more money? Look at what we have prioritised in this place: we have prioritised MLA pay and the A5 scheme that has blossomed and bloomed out of control. With Casement, all I am asking for is equity: stadia funding is treated on the same premise that, if one goes up, another goes up. I was looking for clawback, but no, no, no, that is not good enough for nationalism in the House. To strengthen your case, you have to get your own house in order before you put out your hand for more money.”
“— and that is what we need to deal with first.”
“There are structural problems and cultural problems —”
“I am all for making the case for a fair funding deal for Northern Ireland, but the premise of the Sinn Féin amendment is undermined by the very report that it cites and relies on. <BR /> <BR />In considering all things equally, we have to look at what the problem is. The problem is Stormont and the priorities. Politics is all about priorities, and, over the years, we have seen time and time again that the Executive do not take the hard decisions. If they are to be taken seriously, we need to get our own house in order before we continue to roll out the Oliver Twist mentality of asking for more money. I certainly do not believe that, if we get funded to whatever level we ask for, all our ills in this place will disappear. The problems go a lot deeper than that.”
“Those are not my words or Treasury's words; those are the words of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in the very report that Sinn Féin cites in support of its amendment. <BR /> <BR />Only a few lines later, the report states:”
“Really? What does the Fiscal Council report say on page 27? It states:”
“The Sinn Féin amendment, which parallels the SDLP motion, defaults to its favourite place and the usual position of, "Blame the Brits", even though Northern Ireland is funded to 124% compared with England. Sinn Féin proposes that the Assembly recognises that the Fiscal Council report:”
“Because they are happy to throw money at the GAA. There is no parallel hike in the subregional stadia projects, which, combined, get a mere £67 million, with many deserving clubs missing out entirely on the funding. <BR /> <BR />Then, of course, we have that old chestnut: the A5. How many millions are set aside in the draft Budget for that? The figure is no longer in the millions. It has ballooned to a figure of £1·1 billion set aside for the A5. Why has that project been so problematic and expensive? It is because of the very climate change legislation that the House put in place, with the SDLP being among its most vocal advocates.”
“Certainly, there are elements of the motion that have merit and others that are misguided. You will find no dispute from me that Northern Ireland would be better off with an agreed Budget and a Government with a plan for not just the incoming year but the years ahead. However, I will make two observations about that. First, the Budget must be fair and equitable. The Finance Minister has told us that time and time again, but the draft that he produced was certainly not that. <BR /> <BR />We find that over £101·5 million is committed to Casement, which is an increase in the original commitment to the project of over 60%. Some months ago, when I brought a proposal to the House to seek clawback of some of that cost to the public purse, some of the loudest howls in this place came from many of the SDLP Members in the Opposition. Why?”
“I look forward, in the coming days and weeks, that when young people in our communities get caught up in trouble, they will see the same urgency, the same compassion and the same willingness to act from the bail bondsmen, Tennyson and Donnelly, when they put their hand in their pocket when the woke wagon rolls into town. <BR /> <BR />I finish with this. I make no bones about it at all. I signed the petition of concern on the basis that I did not trust Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and People Before Profit to get this right. I could not trust them to put victims before their ideology, all under the guise of progressive politics, so I am glad that 30 MLAs took a stand to ensure that the amendment would not be railroaded through and that victims would be heard instead of the ideology that those who signed the amendment were wanting to push.”
“That should be a lesson for us all to heed. The amendment that the liberal elite were all piling in behind and coming together on was, indeed, dangerous and would have led to more children being exploited due to there being no risk of prosecution until the age of 14, except for a cherry-picked list of offences based on public perception rather than sound evidence. <BR /> <BR />The 30 MLAs who triggered the petition of concern have done the majority in the Chamber a great service. The 30 MLAs have ensured that you will not have to look a mother, father, son or daughter in the eye when a crime has been committed and the guilty party cannot even be held responsible. My conscience is clear. The decision that we took was for the greater good, and what we did was the right course of action.”
“As I get to the end of my speech, I want to get to a point where I am really focusing in on the primary reason why I decided to sign a petition of concern, based on what passing amendment No 82 would have unhinged and unleashed on Northern Ireland. I want to look at a real-life example that is well documented, so let us consider what happened in Edlington in 2009. Two brothers, aged 10 and 11, abducted two younger boys. They subjected them to a prolonged ordeal that involved beatings, strangulation, burning, humiliation and threats to kill. One of the victims suffered catastrophic injuries, and both were left for dead. Thankfully, they survived. However, had that happened in Northern Ireland and had amendment No 82 been in place at that stage, neither of those young boys would have faced any criminal sanction.”
“I am glad to hear that we are in agreement on that.”
“We could play this game all night. Does that not mean that the same would apply when you name a play park, like the Raymond McCreesh play park, after a terrorist? On that basis —.”
“Mr Dickson, if you want to make an intervention, I am happy to take one.”
“Ah, the mask has slipped. That is the narrative that the liberal elite is trying to focus on. There were no political comments that sent anybody on to the streets, and I want to be clear about that.”
“Absolutely, and there is no problem going after those people, but, at the same time, if a child was engaged in that activity — I refer to Sam McBride's comments on 'The Nolan Show' earlier this week when he said that he saw very, very young people out on the streets on Thursday night when he was there. However, we cannot say, "Well, whatever crimes you have committed, that is OK. We can talk about it after". No, there has to be some responsibility for your actions. That has to be at the core. If there is a victim, making an excuse for somebody is wrong. If something had happened due to those attacks and a victim was left at the end of it, I am sorry, but I would not say to them, "But that person was too young". That person decided to engage in that activity.”
“Let us look at a real-life example that is well documented. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give way to Ms Sheerin.”
“Can the Members who wanted to support that amendment say for certain that no child under 13 was involved?”