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 28 of 45.
“Following the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman, does the Executive Office now have an agreed position, and what impact will that have on the ending violence against women and girls strategy?”
“Thank you very much. The Member has distorted what was said. <BR /> <BR />Ensuring accessibility means fixing the funding model and rebuilding the workforce. Minister, you know the issues and the problems: it is your turn to get on with it.”
“The General Dental Council confirms the flight from NHS provision. Northern Ireland has the largest shift to private practice of the four UK nations. Only 11·5% of practices are now fully NHS. The Minister must bring forward a new and fully resourced oral health strategy that does not rely on goodwill and private income to prop up a public service. We must ensure that early and preventative oral healthcare is accessible to all, not just those who can afford to go private. That —.”
“One mother living in Larne told me how she was on the verge of registering her toddlers with a dentist in Enniskillen — a staggering four hours away — because nowhere closer would take them. Only a chance callback from a Ballymena surgery saved her from having to make that journey. In Belfast, my deputy leader, Councillor McDowell, has described calling dozens of practices on behalf of constituents, only to find none accepting NHS patients. However, there are reports of migrants being transported from Belfast to Banbridge by taxi for dental treatment.”
“The simple act of getting a dental appointment is now out of reach for far too many. According to the British Dental Association, the fees paid by the Department of Health to dentists do not cover the actual cost of delivering care. The harsh reality is that that shortfall has made an NHS dental practice financially unviable for many, so it is no surprise when they leave and turn to private work, or leave the industry altogether. In 2024 alone, over 40,000 NHS patients were removed from dental practice lists. More than 53,000 have been removed in just the past two years. Between quarter 1 of 2023 and quarter 3 of 2024, we lost over 177,000 registered patients from NHS dentistry. The registration of children aged between zero and 17 dropped by over 15,000 in just one year. That has real-life consequences for us all.”
“Minister, given the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland and many issues relating to the environment, was there any discussion about alignment for the whole of the UK with the EU, and, as a consequence, subverting the result of the 2016 referendum?”
“Shame on the republican/nationalist side of the House. You will pay come election time.”
“I trust local people, and I understand why they are unhappy. They are not racist or ignorant; they are asking fair questions about why it is happening in their areas. They are asking, "Why do people not speak to us?", or, "Why does no one speak up for us?". My goodness, the intolerance shown in the Chamber today proves the point —”
“It is absolutely not. It should not be a controversial issue. That leads me to the problems that we have had in the debate today. It has been all about name-calling and mud-slinging, instead of creating the space to allow debate to happen. <BR /> <BR />We cannot keep asking taxpayers who have lived here all their lives to fund translation services on that scale. Migration puts pressure on hospitals, schools and housing: that is a fact. It may not be a problem in the leafy suburbs, but if you speak to working-class people in the Province, you will hear that many of them feel like strangers in their communities. Mr Frew rightly highlighted Ballymena. Take Harryville or Clonavon: my goodness, those were once working-class areas, but houses have been bought up by landlords who have turned them into illegal HMOs, many of which are overcrowded.”
“Last September, I tabled a question for written answer to the Health Minister on translation services. In 2023-24, the Department spent £4·4m on face-to-face interpretation. Over £4 million of that was spent on translation for those who came to Northern Ireland and could not speak or understand a basic level of English. Let me be clear: no one is saying that people should be denied medical care or to come to this country to work. However, if we are spending over £4 million just to translate what a doctor or nurse has said, that shows that the system is broken. If you come to the UK, there should be an expectation that you are able to speak and understand a basic level of English. That is not —”
“Not at all. If you look at the name "Gaston", you will see that my ancestors came here years ago and made this place their home. That is not the problem, and that is not what we are addressing today. <BR /> <BR />The motion rightly highlights the cost of immigration. Not all of that cost is paid by Westminster; part of it is borne by the Executive.”
“Sadly, that is a fundamental that many in the House struggle to grasp. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCrossan, you were looking in.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely, I agree, but I hope that that policy will change. The election results in England a number of weeks ago have changed the mindset of the Labour Government, and I trust that they will follow through on some of their commitments. <BR /> <BR />As of today, people who arrive in the South illegally can still come across the border into Northern Ireland, with this place having no powers to stop them or even send them back across the border. On the other hand, we have the Irish Government actively checking border crossings. In the past seven months, they have sent 50 migrants back to the UK from the Irish Republic, at least six of whom were sent with a one-way train ticket to Belfast. Members, a sovereign nation must have control of its borders and, indeed, its destiny.”
“— unless and until unionism gets back to the position that it abandoned after the election and refuses to implement the Union-dismantling protocol, no immigration policy will apply equally across the UK.”
“Despite the spin about the reset yesterday, no one even pretended that it will remove the immigration border in the Irish Sea. Let us be honest, —”
“<BR /> <BR />On that basis, how the rigorous implementers in the House have lined up on immigration is not surprise. Mr Buckley summed up the attitudes of the nationalist and republican alliance in the House well when he said:”
“The motion exposes a simple but serious truth: the United Kingdom no longer controls immigration policy across its own territory. Why is that? It is because the protocol has placed part of our nation under foreign rule. It is a matter of deep regret that some returned to Stormont having promised the public that they would not do so whilst the protocol remained. However, here we are: back in office with the protocol still in place and bedding in more and more each day. Now the House is debating a motion that confirms what many of us already know: Northern Ireland is excluded from the UK's immigration system. The Rwanda case made it clear that, when push comes to shove, it is not Westminster but Brussels that is in control. Our colonial masters in the EU now hold sway in Northern Ireland.”
“Let me be clear: any conversation about dignity, respect and historical justice must begin with moral consistency. As long as the signatories to the motion continue to defend, justify or celebrate their wicked IRA, which abducted, murdered and secretly buried more than a dozen innocent people, they are in no position to lecture anyone about how we should honour the dead. The irony of Maolíosa McHugh proposing a motion of this nature shows that Sinn Féin is a party with no remorse for the abduction —”
“The so-called decolonisation of museum collections is, in truth, something that my staff are more exercised about than I am. That having been said, I want to address one specific aspect of the motion that is before us, namely the call for:”
“Did the Minister raise with the Irish Government the failure of Dublin-headquartered institutions to contribute to the child abuse redress in Northern Ireland in relation to abuse in Roman Catholic Church institutions? It is an issue that has greatly exercised victims who have engaged with the Executive Office Committee.”
“Page 7 of the Minister's statement notes the:”
“Thank you very much. I apologise for suggesting that the Executive Office alone has such transcripts. It appears that all Departments get them through that pooled service, which, when you think about it, makes it even worse than I suggested yesterday. I trust that the record will be corrected.”
“Thank you very much. Yesterday, during Members' statements, I said that the media monitoring unit existed in the Executive Office. However, I have been advised that that is not the case. I would like to correct the record. It transpires that the unit in question is located in the Department of Finance and provides its services across the entire Executive, not solely to the Executive Office —”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“Whether it is in Stormont or local councils, the public deserve to know what their money is being spent on.”
“<BR /> <BR />I hear growing frustration from people of all political backgrounds that Stormont has become a self-serving institution, quick to complain about a lack of funds from Westminster, while refusing to be accountable for the money in its control. That is not just bad governance; it is a betrayal of public trust to withhold details of what public money is spent on. In this case, water ingress arose from drilling into the concrete slab of the roof. The public want to know who signed off on such a scheme. Was the scheme approved by the Commission, who will not tell us how much it will cost to fix? <BR /> <BR />The same should apply to councils. Recently, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council settled a tribunal case using a non-disclosure agreement to hide the cost to the public.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. There is no greater duty for public representatives than the proper stewardship of taxpayers' money, yet, last month, the House was advised that the Assembly Commission had reached a confidential settlement with contractors over the cost of repairing Stormont's roof — a multimillion-pound bill, no doubt. That is an outrageous situation: the public, whose money it is, are not permitted to know how much is involved in the settlement. The Commission, made up of Members of Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, reached a secret deal with the contractor behind closed doors. That is not providing transparency. That is not delivering accountability. That is an evasion of holding people to account.”
“Despite all the spin from the rigorous implementation Minister, Northern Ireland remains fully under the EU's customs code, with regulation (EU) 2017/625 treating GB as a third country and Northern Ireland as EU territory, with the damaging Brussels border still in place. Does the Minister seriously believe that a deal that hands the EU access to our fishing waters for 10 more years will be welcomed by an industry that has already been plundered for decades?”
“I welcome confirmation from the Minister that no money from his Department has been provided to Kneecap, and I trust that that will continue. As the Minister responsible for local government, what is he doing to stop that pro-IRA rap group from turning Belfast City Council-owned Boucher Road playing fields into its personal propaganda stage?”
“Minister, numerous concerns have been raised with me regarding access to two surgeries that have been taken over in the past 12 months. What steps can you take to ensure that future contracts will have better patient access requirements built in from the get-go?”
“<BR /> <BR />The TUV is, of course, flattered that we so terrify the Executive Office that our every word must be catalogued and filed away, but how can such an issue arise? Some would call that abuse of public money. How can it be justified to use public resources in that way? If civil servants are being diverted to transcribe radio interviews with opposition politicians, the public is right to ask this question: is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister's real priority? If there is money to burn on typing up 'The Nolan Show', no wonder the public have lost confidence in this place.”
“We do not yet know how many staff it employs or what it costs the taxpayer, but, thanks to my FOI request, we know this: between 7 November and 6 December, the Executive Office had civil servants typing up five full transcripts of interviews featuring me or my staff on 'The Nolan Show', totalling a whopping 63 pages. The transcripts covered contributions from me, my assistant Sammy Morrison and even an expert on freedom of information, Martin Rosenbaum. Let me be clear: those were not policy briefings but media appearances by opposition voices, and they were transcribed at public expense not to assist government work or to keep accurate records but to track political criticism. That is not media monitoring; it is political surveillance.”
“Last week, I received a partial response to a freedom of information request asking for all information held by the Executive Office about a meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Executive Office Committee. Tellingly, the handwritten notes from that meeting were not disclosed as part of the bundle. The little information that I received was released only after the Information Commissioner issued a formal decision notice against the First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />What was disclosed was, frankly, astonishing. Who in the House was aware that the Executive Office operates something called the "media monitoring unit"? That name would not sound out of place in a soviet Ministry. Shockingly, neither would its activities.”
“Just so that we are absolutely clear and, potentially, for the Member to correct the record: we did put in a written submission.”
“To my mind, the Bill and the amendments in the Marshalled List do not address an issue of concern for the public. In fact, when it came to the only chance for the public to have any say in the Bill during the Committee Stage, 69% of responses either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to the salaries paid to Members of other legislatures. Ask the public about the abuse of the expenses system in this place, and I have no doubt that you will find widespread support. When it comes to the matter that I raised, it is with deep regret, as I said, that the amendments tabled were not considered. That was a missed opportunity to restore confidence in this tainted system.”
“In fact, the electorate would argue that there is stronger public interest in consulting on Bills of this nature than others, and that is why I strongly believe that we need to build in the 12-week consultation and ensure that those outside the Commission are being consulted. It is not good enough that matters such as this are debated in the House by the Commission until it publishes a completed Bill only after it is moved at First Stage. My amendment opens the door to more transparency in the Assembly and more input from the House and the public. Anyone who opposes this amendment will have to tell the public why they believe that the public should have no say in the setting of MLA pay and allowances. <BR /> <BR />I want to close with a final observation.”
“In fact, the Bill Office, in discussions, was unaware of such clauses being built into other Bills, and that is why I have outlined that there is a simple reason for this amendment. <BR /> <BR />Consultation is such a natural part of the legislative process that such clauses are considered unnecessary, but when it came to the Bill before the House today, prior to First Reading, no one outside the parties on the Commission had had sight of it. That would not be the case with an Executive or private Member's Bill, so why should it be the case for a Bill on Assembly pay? That is such an underhand way of operating, and it did nothing for the credibility of this Assembly. It does nothing to build confidence between MLAs and their electorate.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a need to bring in this new clause. Yes, people might take it for granted and say, "Well, sure, that is what we do for all Bills in this House". Well, this has been the need. Yes, it should be standard practice. It was actually Mr Butler who raised this in his opening remarks. Look at this Bill and benchmark it against the 12 weeks, which is the norm. I raised this before. The consultation was open for 11 weeks, and two of them were over the Christmas holidays, so this Bill failed to meet the 12-week benchmark. That is why I felt the need. Yes, it should be something that is taken for granted and should be built into every Bill as common practice, but, unfortunately, with this Bill, the consultation that ran did not meet the threshold, hence the need to bring in this new clause to make it a statutory duty in future.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be distracted but, in that vein, I have been quite generous in letting people in. I sense that I am running close to the wire, and your patience seems to be getting tested with some of this, so I will finish my remarks by talking about amendment No 11. <BR /> <BR />The new clause that would be created by amendment No 11 places a duty on the Commission to consult on any Bill that makes provision for salaries, pensions and gratuities to MLAs or former MLAs. The amendment would place a duty on the Commission to consult MLAs, trustees of the pension scheme, the public and any other people whom the Commission considers appropriate. It places a duty on the Commission to publish a report on the outcome of that consideration and sets the period for consultation at 12 weeks.”
“You will be pleased to hear that that brings my remarks on that issue to an end.”
“Well, if we are going to bring the Westminster model here, why is the Bill not wide enough to permit the amendments that I tabled, which would have seen Westminster-style penalties for the abuse of the expenses system?”
“It is OK for SDLP Members to acknowledge the Belfast Agreement when it suits, but when it came to the protocol, they were happy, when it was stacked in their favour, to set it aside with no cross-community vote needed. <BR /> <BR />Moving on, I will leave it to the Member for West Belfast to develop the case for his amendment No 8, but he can be assured of my support. As the Marshalled List makes clear, I will oppose the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I am doing so for no other obvious reason than that former Members of this place are likely to remain on very good terms with their colleagues. It is highly likely that they will stand and still be members of the parties that they once represented. Some may claim that that is what is happening at Westminster.”
“That brings me back to my earlier point. I am trying to focus on the Bill, but other Members seem intent on pulling me in other directions.”
“That takes away your argument about Sinn Féin being abstentionists at Westminster. My goodness, I know that you would appreciate that. I know that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their helpers in the Alliance Party would appreciate that this voice would not be heard, but I do not want to give them that pleasure. I will be here for as long as I am co-opted into this seat. I will seek —.”
“Northern Ireland is, as the Bill acknowledges, part of His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why any unionist would seek to dilute that by introducing reference to a foreign Parliament is beyond me. If you want to benchmark pay against other parts of the UK, that is one thing, but to introduce a foreign Parliament where a Government hold office that make no secret of the fact that they want Northern Ireland to cease to exist is yet another unnecessary way of linking this part of the UK to the Republic. That is not sectarian, Ms Bradshaw. Once again, you have thrown out a number of slurs and produced no evidence to back them up. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to the amendment.”
“To justify that, I refer Members to the opening text of the Bill and, in fact, of any Bill that is introduced to the House:”
“I will bring my remarks on amendment No 4 to an end and continue with my previous remarks. Amendment No 13 would stop any pay rise for MLAs while the protocol remains, but do not stop there. Make it clear that, unless the amendment is built into the Bill, you will refuse to support it. That is my challenge to unionism in the House. Put some pressure on the nationalist and republican alliance, which ripped up the Belfast Agreement to impose the protocol on us. <BR /> <BR />Forgive me for dancing about somewhat. I will go back to the Marshalled List of amendments and amendment No 4. That amendment seeks to remove reference to the houses of Parliament in the Irish Republic from the bodies that the board must have regard to when considering MLA pay.”
“I say this to fellow unionist Members: this is your opportunity to put the pressure on the pro-protocol parties in the House, prove the TUV wrong and show that, when we claim that this place is a racket where people are just interested in their pay packet, we are mistaken.”
“At a time when trust in politics is low, that is an appalling way for an elected politician to treat their constituents whilst planning for a pay rise in the background. <BR /> <BR />I will not detain the House by rehearsing the arguments in relation to amendment No 4, but linked to amendment Nos 3 and 4 and perhaps requiring a little more explanation is amendment No 13, which should be supported by any Member who opposes the protocol. I note Mr Butler's opposition to it, but I will set out my reasons why. In essence, that amendment would mean that any pay rise for MLAs is suspended until such times as the protocol has gone. Only when the House has seen the powers that have been surrendered to Brussels returned to Stormont and Westminster will Members see the provisions of the Bill come into operation.”
“They knew that, in that legislature to which they voted to submit their constituents, there would be legislators elected to represent the people of Estonia, Bulgaria, France and Spain — my goodness — but there would be no one to stand up for the development of legislation to represent the people of Northern Ireland. That was a decision taken by the Assembly, knowing where we are today. The House knew exactly what it was voting for. It had the opportunity to say no, but it knew better and instead voted yes. It is doubtful that any legislator anywhere in the world who is entrusted with the right to represent his or her constituents should ever have agreed to their disenfranchisement in that way.”