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 34 of 45.
“What would DOGE make of a Budget that disregards the Department of Finance's own guidance and awards £24 million to Departments without any bespoke legislation being in place? Would Elon Musk continue to send thousands of pounds to Stonewall, a discredited organisation —”
“I remind the House of the difference between a billion and a trillion: one billion seconds is 31 years and eight months; one trillion seconds is 31,710 years. That is a vast difference. That is why it was important to pick up on that yesterday. <BR /> <BR />Let us focus on the numbers that we can relate to and rely on. If we were to open up our books to DOGE and Elon Musk, what would they make of the table in part 2 of schedule 1 on page 29 of the Bill? Do Members really believe that we should continue to spend over £1 million a year on the North/South Ministerial Council, a body that will not answer straightforward questions from Members and that says that it is not bound by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which applies to every other government agency in the UK?”
“Finally, I highlight the fact that part 1 of schedule 2 to the Budget Bill, which is on page 41, means that the Fire and Rescue Service will not send you a bill after it has been called out. None of that is the case for our friends across the border in the Irish Republic. My goodness, Members, it is great to be British. <BR /> <BR />That having been said, as I highlighted yesterday, many of the ways in which we spend that generous sum from Westminster are highly questionable. Frankly, I think that we would benefit from a Northern Ireland Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As conceded by the Minister and highlighted by previous contributors to the debate, it took a single TUV MLA to pick up on an error that was in the billions of pounds.”
“I begin by focusing the attention of the House on the figure of £31,041,393,000 in clause 1(2). Yes, it is not quite the £57 trillion that we were promised yesterday in the Estimates but, even so, it is a generous amount of money. I remind the House that none of that money is raised by the Assembly. The finances that we debate today are only available to Northern Ireland by virtue of our membership of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />In schedule 2 to the Budget Bill, we have the Department of Health Estimates, with a stated requirement of £4,053,054,000. It is noteworthy that that figure allows us to provide an NHS that does not require patients to pay €80 a day for inpatient services at a hospital. That figure also ensures that no one needs to cough up €100 when they attend accident and emergency or €65 to see their GP.”
“I regret that, across several Departments, that rule is being disregarded on an ongoing basis. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for intervening and requiring Ministers to issue revised answers to questions that I have submitted. Those questions deal with the time lag between draft written answers being provided by officials and the written answer being provided to MLAs by the Minister. It is with the latter that the problem exists. Although it is far from being the only offender, the Executive Office is particularly bad. As I highlighted during Question Time yesterday, a question that I tabled in September 2024 about travel to Washington for St Patrick's Day 2024 remains unanswered, less than a month from St Patrick's Day 2025. That is simply not good enough. Standing Orders need to apply to all, including members of the Executive.”
“I will focus today on the lack of transparency in the House and on the failure of Ministers to adhere to their responsibilities under Standing Orders to respond to questions for written answer. Standing Orders are very clear. Standing Order 20C(4) states:”
“— that is not answerable to us through the straightforward questions that I have outlined.”
“I got a nice one-page letter answering none of those questions and telling me that the North/South Ministerial Council is not subject to FOI legislation. The House has no business allocating —”
“<BR /> <BR />On page 200, we find that the Estimates provide for over £1 million in capital spend on the Maze. I cannot imagine that victims will be too happy about that. <BR /> <BR />Just across the page from that figure, I see that £816,000 in resource and £700,000 in capital will go to the North/South Ministerial Council. I recently wrote to the North/South Ministerial Council. My questions revolved around a mysterious group called the "EU senior officials group". I requested information relating to the formation of the group, details of any changes to its remit since its formation, the current and past membership of the group and copies of the agendas and minutes of its meetings. I cited the Freedom of Information Act 2000. What was its response to an MLA?”
“I will make a few comments on specific Departments. On page 29, I find the spend for the Department for Communities. There is £2·416 million in resource and £375,000 in capital for support for other languages in addition to the spend on the North/South Language Body. I would like the Minister to explain to the House what all that is going towards. <BR /> <BR />On page 54, we have details of the allocations to the Department for the Economy. I discover that the resource spend allocated to InterTradeIreland is £6·429 million. I challenge any Member to find a penny that is earmarked for a body that, the DUP told us, would help address the issues associated with the protocol, namely Intertrade UK. There is nothing going to it from the House. You will not find it anywhere in the Estimates.”
“We are here today voting on throwing that guidance out the window and approving expenditure, through the Budget Act, of, in one instance, eight times that amount.”
“However, here we are today voting on giving over £24 million to Departments without any bespoke legislation in place. <BR /> <BR />The document produced by the Department of Finance says that the authority of the Budget Act should be relied upon only in "certain limited circumstances" and normally for:”
“<BR /> <BR />I draw Members' attention to a document — this one, as Mr Aiken referred to — on the Department of Finance's website, which is titled 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland'. Paragraph 2.5 of that document deals with "Securing adequate legal authority" and states:”
“That means that everything listed in the table has been set up by the Executive and is being delivered without any specific legislation or authority from the Assembly. Today, for example, could be the only occasion on which we vote on the Homes for Ukraine scheme and the strategic migration partnership with Ukraine, which have been allocated over £2 million. It is the same story with the full dispersal asylum seekers scheme, the refugee integration proposal, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocation and assistance policy, but, more significantly, we are today approving Estimates of £12 million in welfare reform mitigations. The Estimates promise that legislation will be in place by 1 April 2025. As we sit here today, there is no sign of a Bill.”
“I also make the point that, while Departments are very keen on getting headroom, as it obviously reduces their likelihood of an overspend at the end of the year, it does not encourage prudence when it comes to public finances. Allowing for such significant sums positively encourages bad financial management. Perhaps the truth is that the Executive do not care about good financial management. <BR /> <BR />Table 6 is on the pages marked with Roman numerals xx and xxi. That table is interesting because, as the heading states, it relates to:”
“My goodness, if His Majesty's Treasury is to be that generous to Northern Ireland, perhaps we, even at a stretch, could manage to pay for that once-coveted bridge over to Scotland. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to a more serious issue. I note tables 5 and 6 in section 1. Table 5 is headroom that the Executive have decided to build in. The resource headroom across Departments is almost £69·5 million, while the capital is almost £114 million. In fact, every Department, with the exception of Agriculture, has headroom built in. I take the point that the Treasury allocates moneys late, as noted below table 5, but nowhere can I find the amount of that allocation, nor which of the headroom figures allocated to Departments in table 5 results from that funding.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Members, I begin by drawing the House's attention to table 1 on the page marked with Roman numeral vii in the book that I have here. You will notice that the heading on the table tells us that the money that we are debating today is not in thousands but in the millions. Therefore, that leads one to the conclusion that, today, we are, remarkably, voting on spending £31 trillion of resource and capital and £26 trillion in cash. That is going by the book, which must have been rushed out the door. If only it were so, Principal Deputy Speaker. Mind you, given the Bill that was debated earlier in the House — the one on MLA pay — one would be forgiven for thinking that some in this Building do not regard that as a typo.”
“Will the Minister outline whether any financial support will be made available to proactively increase biosecurity measures at entrances to poultry farms and related businesses to prevent the disease spreading and reduce the likelihood of future cross-contamination?”
“Deputy First Minister, on 12 September last year, I tabled a priority question for written answer asking how much your Department spent on your last trip to Washington. You still have not answered. When did your officials provide you with a draft answer to that question? More importantly, why does your Department so often flout its obligations, under the Standing Orders of the House, to answer straightforward questions?”
“Unless or until Members of this House have the self-respect to reclaim those laws, we should not be treated like any other legislature. <BR /> <BR />For those reasons, I will oppose the Bill. Shame on those who introduced it: I am glad that there has been a public outcry to call you out on it.”
“Members of this Assembly do not deserve a pay rise to put them in line with Members of other Parliaments and assemblies because, uniquely, this Assembly has decided that there are vast areas of law and policy that it does not want to have any say over. In picking up his point from earlier, I say to the Member that the only legislative provision on pay in the Bill is for consideration of other legislatures' salaries, all of which are higher. If the Assembly is so pompous as to believe that it is just as important and competent as the legislatures listed in clause 3 of the Bill, why did the majority of Members vote to give away lawmaking powers to Brussels, where no one from Northern Ireland has any say in the laws that govern something like two thirds of our economy?”
“Mr Clarke, let me answer that question. First, as the motion proposed by the Member for West Belfast reminded us last week, there are people who are expected to get by on just a little more than what you receive, on top of your Member's salary, for sitting on the Commission. You have your MLA salary, and you get an additional salary for being on the Commission. Not many people who are on carer's allowance will have much time for sob stories about MLAs struggling to raise their families on the £52,500 before tax that every MLA gets, let alone the £64,500 that Chairs of Committees are paid, the £90,500 that Ministers get or the £124,500 paid to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />An important additional point needs to be made in response to Mr Clarke's point.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I will directly address a point made by Mr Clarke when we last discussed this issue. In fairness, Mr Clarke did not seek to deny the fact that the Commission was on manoeuvres to award itself a pay rise, so I will credit him with his honesty there. However, addressing this corner of the House, he said:”
“That is not the only ruse being pulled in the Bill. Clause 5 opens the door for a former Member of the Assembly to sit on the remuneration board. That represents a clear conflict of interest on two fronts. First, one would assume that a former Member will have maintained some sort of relationship with Members, who would stand to benefit financially from the decisions of the board. Secondly, as a former Member, he or she would benefit from pension determinations. Such a situation cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. There were good reasons why former MLAs were excluded from the original panel. Those reasons remain valid. It is noteworthy that the previous independent financial review panel had just three members. If, as the Bill anticipates, one of those members is a former MLA, that is a sizeable chunk of its membership.”
“There is no other guidance on what they must consider when it comes to pay. The only thing that may stop it is the embarrassment that this corner of the House will cause you all.”
“in other legislatures, where Members earn more than MLAs currently, the parties who introduced the Bill did so thinking that the money was already in the bank.”
“When the Commission brought a motion to the House that paved the way for the Bill, Mr Carroll and I exposed the plan to award MLAs a massive pay hike. Mr Butler claimed that the allegations about the pay rise were absolutely baseless. The truth was that, as the parties represented on the Commission already knew, the dice had been loaded in favour of MLAs getting a bumper pay deal. If, as clause 3 stipulates, the remuneration board:”
“<BR /> <BR />Some provisions in the Bill are sensible. Parties on all sides of the House will be able to cite examples of where the independent financial review panel got it wrong. We had, for example, the ridiculous rule about not having a phone number or an email address on the office sign, which has been referred to. I do not have a great deal of issue with removing some of those powers from the remuneration board, as is proposed in the Bill's opening clauses. <BR /> <BR />It is when we get to the provisions that stipulate that the remuneration board must look at MLAs' salaries in the context of salaries payable to MPs, MSPs in Scotland, Members of the Welsh Parliament and Members of both Houses in the Republic that I have a real problem.”
“I ask the House to note that the names on the front of the Bill represent all the parties on the Commission. It was the intention of Sinn Féin, the DUP, the UUP, Alliance and the SDLP to award themselves a massive pay rise. Members from all those parties have affixed their name to the cover of the Bill. Regardless of what some may say or seek to do by way of amendment in the aftermath of the spotlight being shone on what they were up to, their intention was clear. I see that, immediately after this debate, the Assembly will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Bill. Once again, the parties on the Commission are set to carve up the positions among themselves and keep off it those of us who, by our actions so far on the matter, really are committed to derailing the gravy train from its intended destination.”
“I begin by commenting on how the Bill got to this stage. It is right and necessary to do so, because the process that it went through before appearing in the Order Paper was most irregular. Executive Office guidance on consultation is clear. It sets the standard for consultation at 12 weeks. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the explanatory and financial memorandum deal with what passed for a consultation on the Bill, and it simply does not meet that standard. By my reckoning, it lasted for 11 weeks, two of which were the Christmas holidays. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission decided to consult only the parties that have representation on the Commission and never dared to let the public or, indeed, parties that are not on the Commission see the proposals, much less have their say. When we read the Bill, it is obvious why that was.”
“The House and its Committees would do well to remember that that includes women, girls and, yes, even Christians.”
“<BR /> <BR />Vice President Vance, when drawing his remarks in Munich to a close, observed:”
“I commend the Women's Rights Network for its courage, and I look forward to its feeding into the work of other Departments. Its input would be particularly welcome at the Education Committee, given that the Minister of Education is intent on adopting a "Hear no evil, see no evil" approach to the menace of transgender ideology in our schools. <BR /> <BR />Whilst welcoming the fact that the Women's Rights Network appeared before the Committee, I observed that, as was the case with the Christian Institute, there was little sympathy for the sensible views that it articulated. I put the House on notice that the direction of travel of the Executive Office Committee on a single equality Bill is deeply troubling and is one that may well be positively regressive in its proposals.”
“Had the vice president viewed the Executive Office Committee meeting last Wednesday, he would have been alarmed. We had the Christian Institute speaking about the need to protect the fundamental freedoms of the Churches to maintain their beliefs when engaging volunteer workers. I have no doubt that J D Vance would have recognised the attitudes of the majority of members on the Committee as another example of what he called the "basic liberties of religious Britons" in particular being under threat. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that, for the first time, on Wednesday, a Committee of this House heard from a group prepared to challenge the fairy tale that a man can become a woman. It also highlighted the very real dangers that accompany that fiction.”
“Closer to home, we have seen a similar situation, with Claire Brennan, from my constituency, fined for protesting outside Causeway Hospital. It is deeply troubling that Vice President J D Vance needed to use that opportunity to raise freedom of speech and religion in the context of so-called safe access zones.”
“I welcome the comments of Vice President J D Vance at the Munich security conference. His reminder that some of our most fundamental values are being disregarded should act as a wake-up call to those in power. It is outrageous that Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.”
“Minister, in England, UC work coaches can cross-reference with Companies House in order to verify claims that are made by those who are self-employed or are business owners. Why was the reference to Companies House removed from the NI staff guidance in the past 12 months and, more importantly, under whose instruction? Finally, if I may, will you commit to reintroducing that simple check in Northern Ireland?”
“<BR /> <BR />I sat in on an Ulster Farmers' Union meeting in Ballymoney just before Christmas. The worry and stress in the room were palpable. Many questions remain unanswered from that night. I fear that the inheritance tax, if imposed by Labour, will devastate our agri-industry and, in years to come, lead to food shortages on our doorstep. If imposed, it has the potential to wreck the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. It has to be resisted at every level. However, once again, resisting it in this House is all fine and good, but it is at Westminster, where there are those who do not take up their seats or do not bother to attend, that the real power lies, and that is where you can make the difference.”
“Just half of Northern Ireland's MPs bothered to vote when the issue came to the Commons, which is where the real power lies. As has been said, the Agriculture Minister's party colleague was not there. Half the SDLP did not bother to show up, and the half that did voted with their sister party's Budget. Although Sinn Féin tabled today's motion, its republican ideology matters a lot more than the farmer. It is about time that the parties in the Chamber stopped their play-acting and got serious about representing farmers' interests. It is all well and good to say the right things in the House, but those words need to be followed up with actions in Westminster, where the real power is. Members, farmers see you, farmers are watching and farmers will judge you accordingly.”
“Currently, 36% of farmers in Northern Ireland are aged 65 and over. Farmers in North Antrim and elsewhere have devoted their life to building up their farms with the driving motivation of seeing the land handed on to the next generation. Now, this kick in the teeth from an uncaring Government has rightly left many feeling angry and betrayed. When will the nation and its politicians start to respect those who put food on our tables? <BR /> <BR />With all that having been said, there is an irony in the motion. I do not expect that anyone in the Chamber will oppose it. Yet, if this place votes on inheritance tax, that does not really matter. As has been said, where were the parties with seats in the Commons when the issue was voted on and when it really mattered?”
“That extra land is bought with money on which tax has already been paid. Therefore, it is a double taxation. People buy land with the profits that they have made and on which they have paid their taxes. When they die, the Government come once again looking for more money. Although a farmer may own 50 or 100 acres, they cannot be drawn on for his day-to-day needs. Yet retaining the 50 or 100 acres for farming in the future is key to the generational survival of any farm. <BR /> <BR />There is reason and logic for the historical agriculture exemption from inheritance tax. With limited cash reserves, many family farmers will have no alternative but to sell off land and, consequently, diminish the viability of the farm. Food production and security will suffer the knock-on effects as a result.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Labour Government have proved once again that they have no empathy with the farmer. If they did, they would not have dealt such a brutal blow to the future of family farming through their inheritance tax extension policy. In Northern Ireland, land prices are, in some cases, twice as high as they are in other parts of this United Kingdom. As a consequence, the farm tax threshold will be reached more quickly in Northern Ireland than in GB. Farmers are asset rich because of their land but are cash poor and struggling to meet the constant monthly bills from a fluctuating income. Importantly, when someone in one generation takes over a farm, they naturally want to grow, expand and improve their productivity. During a lifetime, extra land will be bought.”
“There is a tendency in the House to look the other way when it comes to many things. One of those matters is abortion. I noted, for example, that, following the publication of the stats, I was the only MLA to comment on the matter. Could it be that some who say that they are pro-life do not find it expedient any more to say so often? Whatever the reason, they must answer for themselves. <BR /> <BR />I will continue to force people in the House to face the truth, whether that is about the bloody terror campaign that resulted in the Belfast Agreement or the slaughter of unborn children ushered in by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which, I remind the House, enabled the DUP to renew its immoral partnership with Sinn Féin.”
“It is clear from those figures that abortion is increasingly becoming just another form of birth control in Northern Ireland and that the dishonest debate around the matter in the early 2020s, framed around hard cases, did not deal with the real issues created by the legislation. <BR /> <BR />The famous anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce said of the great evil of his day:”
“The abortion stats recently published by the Department of Health show that the number of abortions being carried out in Northern Ireland has increased by a shocking 77% since 2020-21.The number of unborn children being denied a chance of life is up 29% on last year, with 2,792 perishing in the past year. The level of data published by the Department continues to fall well below that released by health authorities in England and Wales. There, information on the socio-economic background of the mother, whether she had more than one abortion and on other matters is provided. In 2024, my predecessor, Jim Allister, received an assurance from the then Health Minister that the situation would change. Why has it not? <BR /> <BR />It is time that we had a properly informed debate on the issue.”
“Moving on, let us consider the situation in other parts of the UK. I note that, in Scotland, there is a carer's allowance supplement scheme. When a petition calling for a similar scheme was presented to the Communities Minister last June, he said that such a scheme would require support and funding from the Executive. Members, if the Assembly can find the money to propose that MLAs get pay parity with Members of the Scottish Parliament, there is money in the coffers to meet that modest request.”
“Thank you very much. Is that strike 1? <BR /> <BR />I was making a comparison: a member of the Assembly Commission earns as much as extra salary as a carer gets in a year. My goodness. It is obscene that that is the reality.”
“As I was saying, Deputy Speaker, I am making a comparison —.”
“I am making a comparison, Deputy Speaker.”
“That is available only to those providing unpaid care for a minimum of 35 hours per week, meaning that payments are worth a maximum of £2·34 per hour. Not only that; if one penny over £151 per week is earned by the recipient, they lose the entirety of their carer's allowance payment. <BR /> <BR />As I read those facts, I could not but reflect on the comments of a Member who told us last week that MLAs with young families struggle to get by on £52,500, which is £1,000 per week before tax, plus office-holder allowances. Members who sit on the Assembly Commission receive £6,000 a year on top of that. A member of the Assembly Commission earns almost as much on top of their MLA salary —”