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 20 of 45.
“Here is perhaps the most sobering line of all:”
“Earlier this week, some of us from my office spoke with a veteran who was injured while serving his country. We showed him the motion and asked him to give his thoughts on it. I quote some of what he said:”
“It is fitting that the motion comes before the House on the Assembly's final sitting day before Remembrance Sunday. In a few days, men, women and children across Northern Ireland will stand in silence. We will lay wreaths and honour courage, sacrifice and duty. Remembrance, however, cannot be a mere sentiment; it must be practical. If our words and actions on Sunday are to be sincere, our actions in the Chamber will reflect them. <BR /> <BR />The motion recognises the value that our service personnel, veterans and their families bring to our society. It affirms that they should not be disadvantaged in accessing services. It welcomes the legal duty to give due regard to the armed forces covenant. On paper, it is sound, but we must be honest with ourselves: the experience of too many veterans here tells us a different story.”
“That is what is at the heart of my amendments. I will move the amendments that are tabled in my name on that basis.”
“I certainly acknowledge anybody who spoke in a personal capacity, whether in the Committee or in the Chamber. I acknowledge the hurt and pain that they have gone through. I am sincere when I do that. That, however, does not stop me presenting my amendments in the manner that I have done. I have full sympathy for anybody who has lost a child through miscarriage or termination. That is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment on abortion. There are those who have aborted a baby who regret it later in life. Those who have had a miscarriage grieve the loss of that child. How could you not grieve the loss of any child? Being a father, I know how much my children mean to me. <BR /> <BR />I strongly support the scheme because, if my wife was in the same position, I would want to recognise that child and name that child.”
“I will give way in a moment. I am proudly pro-life, and it is issues like this that brought me to the Chamber. I will use every opportunity that I have to get to my feet and raise those issues and concerns. My faith guides my contributions in this Chamber. That is why I am opposed to schedule 8 and it is why I have tabled my amendments. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give way.”
“I trust that Members today will take on board the heart behind my contribution and my intentions in the amendments. <BR /> <BR />To sum all that up, my concern is that those who are opposed to my amendments are those who do not agree that conception starts at birth.”
“In an intervention, I pointed out that nobody is suggesting that the words "termination" or "abortion" be included on a certificate or form. It is simply wrong to try to peddle that and to leave it at my feet. That is not at the heart of what we want to achieve. In Kellie's intervention, however, she seemed to take exception to the word "abortion" appearing anywhere in legislation. I realise that that word can be triggering, but it is legislation that we are dealing with here. I support such an inclusion, and my amendments deserve a place in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll talked about the gaps in the Bill. He has an issue with charging for certificates. He said that amendment No 4 seems reasonable, but he talked about amendment No 5 stigmatising women and creating a chill factor. Once again, that is certainly not right.”
“<BR /> <BR />Brian Kingston was first up after lunch. He said that the Bill is consistent with the DUP's pro-life stance, and he agrees with there being a voluntary option for those who want to opt in or, indeed, do not want to avail themselves of the scheme at all. <BR /> <BR />Kellie Armstrong spoke about how hard the debate has been for her today. I pay tribute to Kellie for giving her personal experiences not just today but in my short time in the Chamber. I must commend her for that. We might agree on some things and disagree on others, but that does not stop me recognising a heartfelt contribution, and that is what Kellie brought to the debate. However, at some stages throughout the debate, she misrepresented me.”
“At the same time, just because I am a man, that does not mean that my views do not count. I trust that, when I presented my arguments today, I did so sensitively. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew very jollily welcomed the fact that we are dealing with legislation. He thanked the staff on the Committee, which he has now left. I am not sure whether they are glad to get rid of him, but he certainly was in his element today when he was putting forward his opinions. He pointed out that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for baby loss certificates. Do not let this get lost in the debate that we have had today: everybody in the House supports the scheme. It is just that some Members have a different interpretation of the things that need to be included. However, do not let that take away from where we are and where we are going.”
“She said that I was demonising women. That is a misrepresentation of my stance, and it does not reflect the heart that I have behind such matters.”
“Where his comments on amendment No 5 are concerned, Members should be assured that that amendment has nothing to do with a culture war. It is disingenuous to try to label me as someone who is entering into that sphere. Indeed, it was the Member who brought the culture war into the debate when he went to the press at the weekend to misrepresent my and my party's stance on the issues. Given Mr Tennyson's contribution, biology does not matter, according to the gospel of Eóin. He then stated his opposition to amendment No 5. <BR /> <BR />Dr Aiken talked about dealing with the matter in compassionate terms, saying that it is important to get it right. I trust and believe that Members have done that today. Dr Aiken went on to thank all those who gave evidence. <BR /> <BR />Deirdre Hargey gave us the typical equality speech.”
“The Minister said that there were 1,100 responses to the consultation, and I thank everyone who submitted their views, but it is appropriate for the House, at Consideration Stage, to include the amended clause. I hope that that clarity will allow Members to back the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Diane spoke in support of the amendment that she and Paul Frew tabled. I note that it has been withdrawn pending the outcome of what the Minister said. <BR /> <BR />Mr Tennyson said that debates such as this are triggering and that language matters. I trust that Members will have heard from my language and how I presented my amendments what I have tried to do in that regard. The Member does not oppose amendment No 4 essentially but will oppose it anyway, and his contribution reflects that.”
“I clarify once again that my amendments reflect basic, first-day biology — it is a biology lesson — and that is where my opposition to the schedule comes from. <BR /> <BR />Diane Forsythe made a heartfelt contribution, and I felt that some of the thoughts that she put forward reflected a genuine stance. She reminded the House that death is a part of life that we must all navigate. A concern was raised shortly after that, and Ms Armstrong intervened to make the point that the sex of a baby is not known in all cases. To clarify, what I propose is an appendix to the form for the sex and name. No one needs to leave anything blank. If they do not know the details, they do not have to fill in the appendix. It is about the personhood of the unborn child. I trust that that clarifies my proposed subsection 3A(b) of clause 11.”
“Mr O'Toole went on to speak on behalf of the SDLP. Throughout his contribution, I wondered whether he was speaking on behalf of everyone in his party or whether those who sit on the Back Benches are sympathetic to some of the amendments that I have put forward today. He said that he did not object to the principle of amendment No 4. He voiced his objections to amendment No 5. I say to him that Stormont decides the principles; the civil servants fill in the details. It is up to the House to ensure that the Bill includes the principle that no grieving parent should be excluded. As I have said, the lives lost through termination were not included in previous debates. <BR /> <BR />Jemma Dolan spoke on behalf of Sinn Féin. She said that I oppose equality and cause division.”
“The life of a baby starts at conception, and it is important that life is recognised and included in the certificate scheme if — this is the clarity I have tried to bring to the Bill today — and only if the parent wishes to avail themselves of a certificate. Agreement to my amendments will not automatically mean that those who have lost a baby through abortion will automatically get a certificate. That, as I have said, is a misrepresentation of my stance. <BR /> <BR />I will go through the comments of a few Members. Mr O'Toole, as the Chairman of the Committee, thanked those who provided the 40 responses at Committee Stage. He paid tribute to those who had given personal testimonies. I am sure it was traumatic and delicate, but those who gave their personal testimony need to be recognised, and we must commend them for doing that.”
“I thank Members for their tone. They might not agree with the amendments that I have tabled, but we have had a good discussion on them. I trust that Members see the heart that is behind the amendments that I have brought to the House. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, due to my amendments being tabled, the Bill firmly applies and recognises that aborted babies, either through choice or led by medical evidence, will be included in the scheme. That was not the case in the debate at an earlier stage. The House has moved on that, and I welcome the fact that we now recognise that babies lost through abortion cannot be left out and need to be recognised. That is a change of direction for the House.”
“Absolutely, yes, those words will appear in the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment. In previous debates, abortion was not counted. The amendment is to ensure that abortion is given its place in the Bill so that, if those who have suffered an abortion, whether through a medical termination or through their choice, wish to avail themselves of a certificate, they can get one.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is a misrepresentation to state that the term "abortion" will appear. It is a case of opening up the regulations so that those who have suffered an abortion can and will have the right to apply for a certificate. Nobody is saying that the term "abortion" will be on certificates. Nobody is saying that the term "abortion" will be listed on the form. That is a misrepresentation of the heart behind the amendments.”
“I thank the Minister for his response in outlining the numbers not only of his own staff but the numbers of staff from other Departments at County Hall. <BR /> <BR />Minister, the grounds of County Hall have not been maintained and have become neglected over recent years and months. Can you set out today when the Department will start to carry out routine maintenance at County Hall again to ensure that it becomes a nice, welcoming environment, not the eyesore that it has been allowed to turn into?”
“Thank you very much for bringing me in. To be clear, that amendment was tabled, because, during the debate at the Bill's Second Stage, the Deputy Speaker said that abortion does not come into this. I was motivated to introduce abortion into the Bill, because it is part of the process and should be included. Given that the Deputy Speaker was very clear, I feel that the issue needs to be in the Bill.”
“I am happy to clarify that that is, absolutely, the intention. It is only for a mother or parent who wishes to have the certificate. We need to be clear that there will be no compulsion: the option will be there for families who want that recognition.”
“I understand the point that Mr O'Toole is trying to make, but cast your mind back to the Bill's Second Stage and the Deputy Speaker's remarks and his ruling during that debate. Do you not believe, based on the Deputy Speaker's comments, that clarity is needed in the Bill?”
“on a baby loss certificate? Who is suggesting that someone who has had an abortion, perhaps as a result of medical advice, should be denied a baby loss certificate? <BR /> <BR />I commend my amendments to the House.”
“I understand that there will be deep division in relation to my opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, but who is opposed to a family's including:”
“All that I am trying to do is replicate the scheme that exists in Scotland. <BR /> <BR />Every year, thousands of families in Northern Ireland lose a baby before 24 weeks, some through miscarriage, some through medical necessity and some through abortion. All of them grieve. All of them deserve dignity. My amendments do not judge. They do not compel. They include but only if requested. I urge MLAs from all parties to support my amendments — amendment Nos 4 and 5 — as acts of basic human kindness. Parents who have lost a baby, however that loss happened, should never be told, "Your grief doesn't count". <BR /> <BR />I have heard some suggest that MLAs should leave all of that to the regulations. My question is this: which of my amendments do you disagree with?”
“It says, "Grief does not discriminate by cause". Importantly, it mirrors the Scotland scheme, which includes medical terminations without controversy or compulsion. The FAQ paper on the Scottish Memorial Book of Pregnancy and Baby Loss Prior to 24 Weeks states:”
“I do not accept that it is about point-scoring. I have been open and honest. I tabled the amendments well in advance. The only issues that have arisen were from Mr O'Toole and from Mr Tennyson in the paper over the weekend. I have never tried to raise this as a political issue, but it is important. I felt a conviction to bring it to the Chamber, which is why I have done so. I have tried and will continue to try to be as sensitive as I can on the issue as we progress. <BR /> <BR />It is important to recognise that, for those who have had an abortion that, in some cases, they deeply regret, giving them the option to apply for a baby loss certificate would help with the process of dealing with that loss. It is cruel to deny women in either circumstance that option or to suggest that it is wrong. My amendment removes that barrier.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. As I said, on the basis of the comments from the Deputy Speaker previously, it is important to have it in the Bill.”
“I have a question for you, Mr O'Toole. We are talking about loss. Everyone agrees that loss matters, so why fear the clarity that my amendment would put in the Bill? It is important that it is in the Bill, especially after the comments that Mr Blair made when he was in the Chair during the Second Stage debate. We have to bring clarity to the debate. If I may say so, my amendments were tabled on 23 June, so it has not been dropped in at the last minute. The amendment was tabled well in advance. It is only the Members who have created opposition and hysteria who have made it an issue.”
“Nobody should be excluded. It is up to the parent. It has to be choice-based. If that mother wants to apply for a certificate, she should be able to do so. Yes, some people have said, "Leave it to the regulations", but I want it to be in the Bill. I want it to be clear that, if somebody wishes — only if they wish — to apply for a certificate, they will have the opportunity to do so. <BR /> <BR />I give way to Mr O'Toole.”
“I will in a wee minute. <BR /> <BR />Absolutely: in circumstances where a baby has been aborted because of advice that the mother's life is at risk, the mother should be able to apply for a certificate if she so wishes. Over the weekend, I read a lot of commentary in the media in which, frankly, my amendment had been misrepresented. It is wrong to do that. Let us be clear about that.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely: it gets to the nub of what my amendment is trying to achieve. In the case that he has described to the House, absolutely —.”
“With those comments on the record, it is important to clarify what the Bill does and whom it does not exclude. The system must allow parents who lose a baby through termination to apply for a certificate but only if they want one. There is no forced participation. There is no clinical handout, as has been misrepresented by some in the media. A woman who miscarries at 20 weeks can apply for a certificate. A woman who has an abortion at 20 weeks, perhaps due to the fact that she has been told that her child will not survive outside the womb, should be able to do the same.”
“I remind the House that, at Second Stage, when I mentioned the issue of abortion, Mr Blair, who occupied the Speaker's Chair at the time, interrupted me to say:”
“Parents who want to name their baby on their certificate will be able do so. Parents who do not want to will not have to. Parents can add a line saying, "We recognise" — insert the baby's name — "as a member of our family", but, to be clear, only if they choose to do so. Why do that? It is because grief is personal. Some families name their baby and want the name to be in print. Amendment No 4 will allow them to do just that. Others prefer not to. The amendment is about choice, not compulsion. It turns a cold form into a living memorial to the little one whom they have sadly lost. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 makes provision for a certificate to be issued:”
“My convictions will not allow me to ignore the fact that the issue is contained in the Bill. Anyone who shares that belief will join me in the Lobbies later, and I will certainly welcome the company. <BR /> <BR />I have tabled amendment No 4. Through that amendment, I seek to ensure that the regulations permit the certificate, if — "if" is the key word — the applicant wishes, to include:”
“That amendment permits me to put some important facts on the record. I believe that a child needs both a father and a mother. That is a biological reality that has held true for as long as there has been life on this planet. While, sadly, there are occasions when families break up, that does not negate the need for a father in the conception of any child. <BR /> <BR />Writing a father out of a child's life is wrong. That would be done by paragraph 6(3) of the schedule. There will be those in the House who take strong exception to my saying that. I accept that, but my convictions on such issues are what brought me to the House, and, while I am here, I will continue to stand up for traditional family values and, more important, to be directed by my faith.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you pointed out, the first item on the Marshalled List is my intention to oppose clause 8 standing part of the Bill. Linked to that is my opposition to the schedule. My opposition is consistent with that of my party, a founding principle of which is support for and promotion of traditional family values. That is a founding principle of my party and one that made me choose TUV. <BR /> <BR />The schedule amends the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by inserting the term "second female parent" and replacing the words "both parents" with:”
“That is a self-confessed, damning indictment of inaction from the Minister's Department. How will an additional quango make any difference, apart from blowing more public money?”
“Minister, I will be upfront: I am highly sceptical of an independent environmental protection agency, as was my predecessor. In your statement, we are told:”
“— and I am disappointed that there are MLAs here who think that that is funny.”
“Absolutely. There are bigger issues, but that is happening in this place, which is the seat of the Government. That is what is going on. It is not happening in public areas but in areas that are accessible only to pass-holders: MLAs and their staff, and Assembly staff. Such behaviour is disgraceful —.”
“I am glad that you find it so funny, Mr McCrossan.”
“The members of the Alliance Party and the SDLP may laugh and sneer at my raising this issue, but I will stick up for our hard-working cleaners in this place, because somebody is deliberately flooding the toilets. It is childish vandalism, and it needs to stop.”
“To get clarity, I tabled a question for written answer to the Assembly Commission, and the response confirmed the scale of the problem. There have been multiple deliberate flooding incidents in the past year alone. Those occurred on 14 January, in the first-floor ladies' toilets beside room 144, and on 19 May, in the second-floor male toilets beside room 282. On 14 October, there were two separate incidents in the same male toilet beside room 282. On 16 October, there was another incident in the same male toilet. On 20 October, there was an incident in the third-floor male toilets beside room 368.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Over recent weeks, concerns have been brought to my attention regarding vandalism in Parliament Buildings. It is behaviour that would disgrace any workplace, never mind the seat of the Government. I refer specifically to the deliberate flooding of the toilets in this Building. On one occasion, I discovered taps intentionally left running with the sink blocked, leaving the floor saturated. On speaking directly to our hard-working cleaning staff, it became clear that that was not an isolated incident.”
“<BR /> <BR />Women have been failed; families have suffered loss; and 17,500 slides have been recalled. Warnings were raised years ago that, sadly, were ignored. We now have fresh concerns about the Belfast Trust laboratory, with tests having to be sent across the water. The amendment rightly highlights that the scandal cannot be ring-fenced to one trust. Warm words will not restore trust; only full truth and accountability will. That is why I support the motion and the amendment and why the TUV will continue pressing consistently and without hesitation for truth for those women and assurance that it can never happen again.”
“That call is a matter of public record. I also commend my colleague, Councillor Keith Ratcliffe, who has been tirelessly working away in pursuit of the issues, standing with affected families and refusing to allow the scandal to be buried. Members will have seen the questions for written answer that I have submitted, seeking answers about the Royal College of Pathologists' report and about concerns raised as far back as 2021. Several questions have been answered, and I welcome and acknowledge that, but one remains outstanding even to this day, despite having been tabled in early September last year. That is simply not good enough, Minister, and it speaks volumes about the frustrating pace of achieving transparency in your Department. That is why victims and campaigners have lost confidence in the internal processes.”
“I welcome the original motion tabled by the Alliance Party and the amendment tabled by the DUP. Both recognise the seriousness of what has unfolded, the need for full transparency and the absolute necessity of a statutory public inquiry into the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Trust and, now, beyond. I commend the strength and determination that the Ladies with Letters have shown and continue to show. <BR /> <BR />It is not a moment for point-scoring but a moment for accuracy and accountability. The TUV was the first party to publicly call for a statutory public inquiry. On 4 September 2024, when others were still speaking in vague terms of reviews and learning exercises, the TUV stated clearly that a full public inquiry was necessary to uncover what happened, who failed whom and how women were so badly let down.”