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 36 of 45.
“In any Assembly or Parliament worthy of the name, that would be a resigning matter. Any party with dignity and respect for democratic norms would refuse to partner in Government with people who have abused public money in such a blatant fashion, but democratic norms do not apply to Northern Ireland. Members have shown a remarkable ability to overlook the IRA's ill-gotten gains from the Northern Bank, the murder of Paul Quinn, the abuse of Máiría Cahill and the continued role of the IRA army council in overseeing Sinn Féin and its retention —.”
“<BR /> <BR />When the motion is agreed, there will be an onus on the Assembly Commission to go back to the drawing board on the issue: to get in someone who is serious about getting to the truth rather than someone who approached the issue from the premise that MLAs are to be taken at their word, regardless of where the evidence leads; and to put on pressure and put measures in place to ensure that money does not flow from constituency needs to party political operations. <BR /> <BR />I remind Members that, if they do not force a Division on the motion, they accept either that the First Minister misled the House when she described Mr McGinley and Mr McMonagle as press officers or that her party, and she, as an individual who employed Michael McMonagle as a constituency worker, misused public money.”
“Since the motion was tabled, Ms O'Neill has provided ample evidence of her unfitness for office, none more so than her attendance at IRA commemorations. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly has damaged its reputation in seeking to evade the issues related to the scandal. The credibility of the Committee system is in tatters. The confidence of the public in Stormont's ability to properly manage money is through the floor. That comes, importantly, at a point at which public finances are under pressure as never before.”
“The Commission told me that it had absolutely no idea. Profoundly serious child protection issues are involved here that should not be ignored merely because the political and media establishment believes that the rotten institutions of the Belfast Agreement are more important than child safety. <BR /> <BR />Given the reluctance of Members to flood the speaking list for today's debate, I suspect that there will not be a rush to do as I say, but I remind Members that this scandal and the disgraceful slurs thrown at the British Heart Foundation by Ms O'Neill and Minister Murphy prompted me to table a motion of no confidence in both Ministers. Members, you are still welcome to sign that; it is in the Business Office.”
“A fact that has received relatively little attention is that, because Sinn Féin, specifically North Antrim MLA Philip McGuigan, its sole contributor to the debate, failed to cancel Michael McMonagle's Assembly pass, he could come and go as he pleased at Parliament Buildings. In order to probe that issue, I asked the Assembly Commission:”
“Tellingly, a former member of the independent financial review panel described as astonishing the review's conclusion that it was difficult or even impossible to distinguish between political and constituency work. We also learned from that panel member that the head of Legal Services made no attempt to clear up the confusion in his mind by contacting members of the panel to ask how they had drawn a distinction that he felt was impossible. As Sam McBride observed, the review, if accepted, opens up the potential for a £10 million pot of public money to seep into political parties. That cannot be right; it cannot be allowed to happen. <BR /> <BR />Other issues raised by the McMonagle scandal remain live.”
“I remind Members that, now that they have been forced to debate the motion and forced to calculate that they cannot be seen to vote against it, there is an onus on them to take action. For all the talk of some people during elections about being the only ones with the ability to confront Sinn Féin, it took a single TUV member to bring the matter to the Floor. <BR /> <BR />The suggestion contained in the review report that it is impossible to distinguish between party political work and constituency work needs to be knocked on the head. In 2012, the independent financial review panel ruled specifically that constituency funding was not to be used for party political purposes because:”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. <BR /> <BR />Time and time again, the Assembly has failed to face up to the issues that are supposedly addressed in the review report. Attempts to raise matters that relate to that scandal have been shut down in the Chamber and in Committee. Frankly, many in the Chamber are terrified of upsetting the consensus, and the lack of names on the speaking list is testament to the fact that most Members simply want the issue to go away. <BR /> <BR />That having been said, it appears that parties have decided that they cannot be seen to vote against the motion. I welcome the fact that, at long last, the Assembly has displayed some willingness to tackle the issues.”
“We have an opportunity today to back the motion, relook at how public moneys are spent in this place and put in place an extensive audit that will make sure that such a scandal never reoccurs. I trust that, because of the public money involved and the perceptions that the report has caused, Members will support the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />Now that the system employed by Sinn Féin has, to an extent, been exposed in the report, paragraph 70's contention that such a gross abuse of public money would not be picked up by a more extensive process of audit is an insult to auditors. There is no reason why the questions obviously ignored by the report — the public statements that McMonagle and McGinley were press officers; the published articles in which McMonagle was described as a press officer; whether McMonagle even worked out of an MLA's office and not a party office in this Building etc — could feature as part of such an audit to prevent a repeat of this scandal in future. <BR /> <BR />Public perception of this place has been trashed.”
“We know that, in that respect, the report is wrong. I say that definitively because of the article by Sam McBride that was published in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on Saturday18 January, in which he cites the Sinn Féin press office Christmas rota for 2020, issued on 22 December 2020. Over a 13-day period, McMonagle covers three days, the same number of days as Mr McGinley and, indeed, as the head of Sinn Féin press operations in the United Kingdom. The report is so desperate to escape the inescapable conclusion to which the evidence points: money that MLAs should have been using to provide a service to their constituents was being funnelled into Sinn Féin press operations.”
“Members, at no point during her employment of McMonagle could Ms O'Neill even table Assembly questions. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the review did not examine the evidence. The head of Legal Services dismisses Ms O'Neill's description of Mr McMonagle as a "press officer". He even manages to gloss over the fact that Sinn Féin's in-house newspaper, 'Republican News', describes him as such. However, I want to take us to one of the most startling paragraphs in the report, paragraph 82:”
“I carry no candle for Mr McMonagle, but to conduct a review of his conduct and have findings against him that result in a police complaint without so much as contacting him or either of the other two press officers named in the review report in order to get their side of the story does not — to use the Chief Executive's phrase — follow due process. <BR /> <BR />The review did not consider the matters in a robust way either. At no point did the author of the review report ask whether McMonagle and McGinley worked out of the Sinn Féin press office in Stormont or out of an MLA's room. At no point did he pick up on the fact that one of McMonagle's supposed duties for Ms O'Neill, according to the job description reproduced in paragraph 105 of the report, was:”
“From the review report, it is clear that Mr McGinley and Mr McMonagle were employed not through the financial assistance to political parties scheme but by Members of the House. Mr McGinley was employed by Declan McAleer from 2018 to 2024, as detailed in paragraphs 86 to 96 of the review report. Mr McMonagle was employed by the MP for West Tyrone, Ms Begley; the now First Minister, Ms O'Neill; and the Sinn Féin press offices. He was supposedly working a staggering 75 hours a week. <BR /> <BR />In his strongest criticism in the review, in paragraph 113, the head of Legal Services tells us that it "strains credibility" to suggest that Sinn Féin was unaware of the situation. He goes on to claim that the fault lay with McMonagle, who had been referred to the PSNI.”
“Given the wonderful character reference for Ms O'Neill from the head of Legal Services, one would think that an appearance by her in the House in which she described Mr McGinley as a press officer would be the end of the matter, but no. The review report's author cannot avoid the fact that one of the individuals described by the First Minister as a press officer — Mr McGinley — was employed via a fund that was intended to cover constituency office costs. That flies in the face of the part of the 'Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016' dealing with office and staffing costs and allowances. It states:”
“Given the level of controversy and press attention that the matter attracted, one would imagine that every word in that statement was carefully chosen, yet, in paragraph 81, the review report claims:”
“The review report's author might as well have added, "And who am I to question her integrity now or make a finding against her?". The truth is that there was plenty of evidence to lead one to conclude that Sinn Féin, including Ms O'Neill, was using public funds meant for constituency offices in order to fund its press operation. When Ms O'Neill addressed the House on 7 October, reading from a prepared statement, she said:”
“Why was it a purely paper-based exercise? Why were the key figures in the affair not brought in and interviewed? I see nothing in the terms of reference to limit the head of Legal Services to approaching his task in that way. Frankly, appointing an insider from the Assembly system was the wrong call — assuming, of course, that one wanted to get to the truth of the matter. The mindset underlying everything in the review is spelled out clearly in paragraph 117:”
“It did not consider the matter in a robust way, it did not follow due process, and it did not examine the evidence. That, sadly, is par for the course when it comes to Stormont. Nothing that I say in this debate should be viewed as personal criticism of the Chief Executive or the review report's author, the Assembly's head of Legal Services. The desire of everyone in this Building to prioritise the process over the proper use of public money and, indeed, child protection has been obvious. <BR /> <BR />Why do I say that it does not consider the matters in a robust way? Because, as acknowledged in paragraph 81 of the review report:”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. All Members received a copy of the report of the review into the Sinn Féin scandal, and pinned to the front of the report was a letter from the Chief Executive of the Assembly. The letter sets the tone for how the powers that be in this Building would like the review to be viewed. It is claimed that, while there has been commentary and speculation on these issues, it was important that these matters were considered in a robust way, which followed due process and examined the evidence. <BR /> <BR />Clearly, the review report is designed to be the last word on this scandal, after which we can all move on, but is that the case? I contend that it is indisputable that this review fails on its own terms.”
“Obviously, it would require a change in UK legislation, but, if we do not have the capacity to deal with online gambling ourselves, we need to be honest about that. <BR /> <BR />We also need to have a conversation with the UK Government, because, on 7 January, they said that they cannot guarantee that someone who self-excludes under the multi-operator self-exclusion mechanism to help those experiencing gambling harm in an online context will be excluded in Northern Ireland. The Government said that they can still self-exclude but that, unlike in GB, they cannot guarantee that self-exclusion will always be honoured in Northern Ireland. That leaves the part of the UK with the highest problem gambling prevalence figures as the least protected in relation to the form of gambling associated with generating the greatest difficulty.”
“<BR /> <BR />In that context, it would make more sense to ask the UK Government to amend the regulation-making power that has given rise to the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 and to collect the part of the levy pertaining to online gambling in Northern Ireland. If we do not do that, we must move immediately to pass primary legislation to introduce a Northern Ireland levy that engages with online as well as terrestrial gambling. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of the need to provide comparable help to those suffering from gambling harm in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I question whether it is really practical and efficient for the smallest part of the UK to engage with the online gambling providers. I suspect that it would be better dealt with by the Gambling Commission.”
“If you look at the GB Gambling Levy Regulations — I have a copy here — you will see that they expressly apply to both terrestrial and online gambling and that the levy is charged at a significantly higher rate on online gambling firms. <BR /> <BR />The reason why Northern Ireland is not covered by the new legislation is supposedly that gambling is a devolved matter. In truth, however, while there is no Assembly legislation covering online gambling, there is Westminster legislation that engages with it. Section 5 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 protects Northern Ireland consumers from exposure to online gambling websites that do not have Gambling Commission licences — the same as in Great Britain. Thus, in practice, the Gambling Commission is more the regulator of online gambling in Northern Ireland than anyone else.”
“The Minister has the power to introduce a levy, but he has not used his powers under section 17(3) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to commence the regulation-making power. Even if he did that, we would still have a problem, because the section 15 levy engages only certain forms of terrestrial gambling. That is a huge problem for two reasons. First, today, gambling is done more online. More than half of gross gambling yield comes from online gambling. Secondly, the problem-gambling prevalence figures associated with online gambling are significantly higher than those associated with terrestrial gambling.”
“Why are we not demonstrating the same commitment to hold the gambling industry to account? It damages our constituents, as demonstrated by GB. That is a pressing question because, as I have said before, the only really thorough assessment of gambling harm in Northern Ireland was the Department for Communities' problem gambling survey of 2016, which demonstrated that the problem gambling rate here is five times that in England.”
“I cannot quite believe that we are here, debating this motion, just after the House, before lunch, voted to increase the gambling stakes and prizes of gambling machines, without even introducing any balancing protections. <BR /> <BR />People will smell more than a whiff of hypocrisy as they consider our actions today, just as they will be forced to question our competence. On 5 April, the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect in GB and are expected to raise between £90 million and £100 million per annum to help those experiencing gambling harm in GB.”
“At the very least, we should wait until the Minister has commenced section 15 of the 2022 Act and developed the regulations to give effect to our gambling levy. He could then return to the House with these regulations and the gambling levy regulations on the same day. Until that time, it would be grossly irresponsible for the House to vote on these regulations, let alone approve them.”
“Some might like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that the only relevant point of comparison is stakes and prizes, but the public know that that is not true. <BR /> <BR />What are we going to do about it? I propose that, at the very least, rather than voting to expose some of the most vulnerable people in our society to greater vulnerability tomorrow — we have reason to believe that they are already five times more vulnerable than those in England — we should not pass the legislation today. I propose that we keep it back, and, if it is to pass, that should only be at a time when we can be sure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded at least the same levels of protection as those of GB.”
“To date, the Department has not by order appointed the day on which section 15 will come into operation, let alone produced regulations on the basis of it. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the section 15 levy is completely unlike the GB levy, because it pertains only to certain forms of terrestrial gambling and does not engage with online gambling at all. If we aspire to govern competently, we must recognise that we cannot blindly seek to bring the risks that face those in Northern Ireland who are vulnerable to gambling harm into line with the risks experienced in Great Britain, knowing full well that the people of Northern Ireland do not enjoy the same protections. Not only that but the people of Northern Ireland will have fewer protections from 5 April 2025 on account of the GB gambling levy.”
“Thus, while the GB rates applied in the regulations will be provided in the context of the protection afforded by the Gambling Commission and the gambling levy, bringing in between £90 million and £100 million per annum, the same will not be the case for Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Before someone interrupts me to tell me about section 15 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which makes provision for such a levy, let me remind the House of two critical limitations. First, no levy has yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, because the Minister has not commenced the power, let alone sought to use it. Section 17(3) of the 2022 Act states:”
“In that context, it makes no sense to expose the people of Northern Ireland to higher risk than the people of GB when the people of Northern Ireland are not afforded the same protections. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, those who responded to the consultation did not just say that the stakes and prizes should be in line with those in Great Britain; they said that the gambling industry should pay a levy to help those who suffer from gambling harm. It is striking that, at 65%, support for increased stakes and prizes was lower than support for a gambling levy, which was 84%. On 5 April, the Great Britain Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect, taking moneys from the gambling industry to pay for the socially destructive implications of gambling.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, I know that the Minister's justification is that the Department conducted a consultation to which consultees responded that stakes and prizes here should be brought into line with those in Great Britain. Some might ask whether it is not odd that I, as a unionist, oppose that. Members, if we are to have competent government, we are required to have regard for more than one thing at a time, and there are two additional considerations that we need to keep in mind when coming to a proper view on the regulations. <BR /> <BR />First, it is important to remember that Northern Ireland is unlike Great Britain in that it does not have a dedicated gambling commission and that the levels of protection afforded to people in Northern Ireland are much lower.”
“In plain English, that means that, if we vote for the changes today, they will come into effect tomorrow. By Friday, you may find yourself confronting the socially destructive implications of permitting a dramatic increase in stakes and prizes. Members will do so against the backdrop of the knowledge that, the last time the Department looked at the issue, we found that our problem gambling figures — remember that this was on the basis of the old stakes and prizes, not the new ones — were five times those of England. Let us not forget that research demonstrates that gambling machines are 10 times more likely to be located in deprived areas. Other Members may be happy to go to bed tonight having voted for that, but I certainly am not.”
“Today, however, we are being asked to sweep that away so that vulnerable people in our constituencies can go into a bingo club or licensed premises and spend £2 to play a gaming machine once with the enticement of winning £500. Therefore, the amount that can be paid increases by a factor of well over six, while the enticement to play increases by a factor of over 20. That is revolutionary, and it is not a far-off event.”
“In that context, if we are to act responsibly, we must adopt a precautionary position and assume that things have similarly deteriorated here in Northern Ireland, unless and until we have robust data to the contrary. <BR /> <BR />What will the proposed provisions do? Today, you have the opportunity to go into a bingo hall or a licensed amusement premises and spend 30p on a gaming machine to play the game once, with the enticement that you might win £25. It was in that context that our problem gambling prevalence figures were five times worse than those of England.”
“<BR /> <BR />In 2016, the Department for Communities conducted the only comprehensive problem gambling prevalence survey that, to my knowledge, it has ever undertaken. The survey results demonstrated a problem gambling rate here that was not just twice, three times or even four times that in England. Members, it was five times that of England. In other words, the people of Northern Ireland — our constituents — were five times more likely to suffer from gambling harm than people in England. Since that time, the UK Government have conducted a further problem gambling prevalence survey that demonstrates that the situation with problem gambling in England has deteriorated further.”
“I am shocked that the regulations have been brought to the Assembly. I am equally shocked that the Executive agreed to sign off on them, regardless of when that happened. Since the return of Stormont, a growing number of intelligent voices have questioned whether we have the competence to govern. I am deeply concerned that the regulations will give credence to those who suggest that we do not. Although there is a sensible way forward, which I will set out, it is only possible to engage sensibly with the proposed provisions, which increase stakes and prizes, by standing back to ask this question: knowing what we know about Northern Ireland today, is increasing stakes and prizes an appropriate step?”
“Deputy First Minister, as the Speaker observed at the start of business today, next week marks the anniversary of the restoration of these institutions. That was partly justified by your party because of the creation of Intertrade UK, yet there is no mention of Intertrade UK in your statement. Why didn't Intertrade UK feature in the discussion, and what is its current budget?”
“No one now disputes the fact that the Irish Sea border remains. After last week's brake failure, no one can dispute my party's claim that it is an utterly useless mechanism. The question that now faces every unionist in the House is this: are you prepared to carry on with this sham whilst unionism continues to be walked over?”
“Having stood on the pedal, unionism has now discovered that the brake has no brake pipes attached. A matter of weeks ago, we saw that the nationalist and republican alliance in the House was happy to perform its masters' bidding and to subject Northern Ireland to laws that no one in this place or our representatives in Westminster can influence. The Secretary of State is clearly treating unionism with contempt. The core issue is that it is one of the 300 areas of law in which we are governed by a foreign parliament. <BR /> <BR />I remind every unionist in the House that they were elected on the basis of opposition to the protocol. When the votes were cast during the previous Assembly election, we all claimed that we were united behind the joint 'Unionist Declaration on the Northern Ireland Protocol' , which said that it was:”
“Next week, it will be a year since the DUP returned to these institutions, boasting that it had cut the pipeline of EU law. Indeed, the Member for East Belfast Mr Brooks put his name to an article in 'The Newsletter' that boasted that the:”
“One of my many frustrations when I was in local government was the attitude of some councillors when setting the rate. They were using the ratepayer as a cash cow rather than funding a service to reflect the needs of those whom they served. <BR /> <BR />In the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area in 2023-24, for example, a ratepayer with a house with a capital value of £150,000 was billed £1,451. In 2024-25, the same ratepayer is paying £1,551 for the same services. We are all good at contributing to debates such as this, but, when it comes to making decisions to protect our people when striking rates etc, there is much less enthusiasm to cut our cloth accordingly.”
“As the cost of living increases, people no longer have a rainy day fund, and, thus, when they are faced with an exceptional bill, such as for a boiler breakdown, they have no choice but to attend the food bank to feed themselves and their children until their next pay day. <BR /> <BR />Members, there are many things that the Executive can do collectively to help families with young children, such as assistance with childcare or a cap on school uniform costs, but what we never hear much talk about is the steady increase in rates and the burden and stress that that puts on families. All these ideas are great, but the money has to come from somewhere to fund them. When approaching the issue of rates, we need to be aware of the extra pressures that increases will place on families who are already struggling.”
“That is a testament to their Christian faith. Before today's debate, I asked them whether they had a message that they would like me to convey to Members and what it would be. They highlighted the fact that pressure on food banks is increasing and the fact that working families and, in particular, working single-parent households who receive no government benefits increasingly struggle with household bills. Tellingly, they report that parents struggle to feed their children during school holidays, with a marked increase in families attending the food bank during the summer and half-term breaks.”
“<BR /> <BR />Prior to Christmas, I made a Member's statement in the House, the aim of which was to highlight the vital service that food banks provide and to call for those who have been blessed beyond their needs to donate where possible, as well as to praise the work of the many volunteers who ensure that food banks are able to meet people at their point of need. North Antrim has two main Trussell Trust food banks servicing the area, with further satellite stations at churches throughout the constituency. All the main food banks, while they have a staff member employed to oversee compliance and distribution, rely heavily on volunteers. <BR /> <BR />I have worked closely with the Ballymena food bank based at Green Pastures Church and have seen the heart that the team has to go above and beyond to help people.”
“but, while government can and should ease the problem of poverty, we will never be able to legislate it out of existence. There is nothing shameful about using a food bank or having one. In criticising the need for food banks, there is a danger that Members create a stigma that need not be there. Food banks are a testament to the community spirit to help our neighbours, and they should be praised as such rather than being seen as a failure of government or society to support those who use them.”
“Having been blessed with three young boys, I know all too well the increasing costs of rearing a family in this day and age. Not only are nappies expensive but the cost of buying fresh food to ensure that children have the best start is steadily on the rise. Like all other Members, I agree that it would be better if the service were not required, but, sadly for many, a food bank has become a critical service that provides many people with a lifeline for them and their family when they find themselves in difficulty. <BR /> <BR />Charity will always have a role to play in every society. Christ himself reminded his disciples:”
“The Minister has talked about the eastern transport plan. I am concerned that large swathes of land in the Ballymena area that are zoned for new roads will never see those roads be built. Has the Department given any consideration to doing away with the proposals in order to allow the land to be released for local regeneration projects?”
“On Friday, at approximately 7.30 am, a large tree fell on a car, blocking Craigs Road outside Cullybackey. Despite that incident being logged shortly after and several calls being made to DFI to warn it of the dangers and to request "Road Closed" signs, those signs appeared only when it was too late. Sadly, the signs were deployed only after a further accident, when a car hit the same tree at 8.00 pm, with a lady needing to be cut out of her car. Thankfully, no one was seriously hurt in either crash, but the outcome could quite easily have been different. In future, will DFI prioritise closing roads that are obstructed by fallen trees in order to protect users on the road network who are unaware?”
“I have heard tell of generators coming in from England and Scotland today, which is welcome, but we need to be better prepared and have those generators ready to go, so that, when the next storm comes, we can meet the needs of those on the critical care list.”