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 4 of 45.
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was using that as an example. When anybody speaks out against its view on those issues, it is the Alliance Party that chunters and sneers at and degrades anybody who tries to speak out on issues that it supports. The Alliance Party wants to abolish all regard for Christianity in law but champions a law that has seen an elderly pastor in his 70s prosecuted for preaching on John chapter 3, verse 16. <BR /> <BR />Forgive me for being cynical by judging the actions and decisions taken in the House on what has gone before. Amendment No 73 is just the Alliance Party's latest attempt to remove Christian safeguards that exist in law. The amendment is not about protections for freedom of speech; it is an illustration of the hypocrisy of the captured ideology of the left.”
“I say that because, in my short time in the House, I have found that it is that party that likes to shut down free speech when it disagrees with it. That is the standard that the Alliance Party has set. If any Member in the House questions its liberal gospel on abortion, on immigration or on transgenderism —”
“I put it on record here today that, while I am a champion of free speech, I am opposed to contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible. I believe that legislators are subject to a higher power and therefore that, when we mess with offences such as this, which have been recognised by the state for centuries, we should do so with extreme caution. <BR /> <BR />We open every sitting with prayers. Why do we do that? We do so because it is part of our Christian, conservative DNA. I strongly believe that, as a Christian country, we should continue to do that. That is why I am speaking out against the blasphemy amendment that has come before us this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />I also note that those in the Alliance Party who are pushing the amendment are ironic in their fashion.”
“Indeed, the offence has been repealed in other parts of the United Kingdom and down South, but that does not make it right. The fact that it has happened there does not mean that we should not ask questions or make our points on the issue. My freedom of expression allows me to put my point on the record. The Alliance Party may not like it, but it is my right to do so whether or not its Members like it and want to chunter and speak under their breath. They can do that all that they want. <BR /> <BR />Lord Scarman further explained that the law did not ban criticism of Christianity but, rather, prevented:”
“He accepted that, historically, the Christian religion is part of the law. He also argued that blasphemy law still served a purpose in maintaining public order and protecting religious believers from grave offence. He went on —.”
“I will move on. Amendment No 73 acknowledges that blasphemy is a common-law offence, rather than one that is codified in any piece of legislation. The last successful prosecution for the offence was back in 1977 and was a private prosecution rather than one brought by the state. The case went the whole way and was mentioned in the House of Lords. It is worth noting what Lord Scarman had to say in his judgement on the matter. He said:”
“me to come to the Chamber to speak on their behalf. The Minister's contribution shows that she is more interested in freedom from religion. So I do not agree —”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I am not here to lecture anybody. I am here to point out and stand up for the constituency that”
“I will focus my brief remarks on the group 3 amendments solely on Ms Egan's amendment No 73, which inserts a new clause to abolish blasphemy. That amendment is the latest attempt to further diminish our Christian country and the conservative DNA that runs through it. The Justice Minister's introductory comments on the group 3 amendments reinforced my suspicions when she referred to "freedom from religion". That is exactly what the Minister and the Alliance Party want to use the Bill for.”
“Further to Mr Buckley's point of order, there have been a number of occasions on which, I believe, the Principal Deputy Speaker has not acted impartially. This morning's degrading comments were further evidence to that end. I understand that the Principal Deputy Speaker should be impartial when she takes that Chair. I urge you, Mr Speaker, to review the comments from this morning's session.”
“Previous reports confirm that Northern Ireland Water dumps approximately seven million tons of raw sewage into Northern Ireland waterways each year, with three million tons of that in the Belfast metropolitan area. Farmers are made the scapegoats while Northern Ireland Water continues to pollute our waterways without fear of sanction. What discussions have taken place between you and the Agriculture Minister to bring an end to the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SoRPI) agreement?”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I say this to those who value our churches: if you do not want to see places of worship close or pass into other uses, we must attend them, support them and allow them to be sustained.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I refute the claim that I am "obnoxious". When you sit in that Chair, you should be impartial. <BR /> <BR />I will finish on this: I say to those —.”
“— and it does nothing to ease community tensions.”
“, but those rushing out to gaslight the people of the Shankill Road —”
“not just when it is politically convenient to put the boot into the local community. <BR /> <BR />Ron's response was, indeed, telling. The message from the Shankill Road today is that many local people are astonished that Gerry Carroll, Paul Maskey and others who have rushed out to comment on the issue even knew that the Shankill Road existed. At no stage have they sought to be part of the solution, yet now that something has gone wrong, they are the first in line to offer criticism. If Members are genuinely concerned about the future of those buildings and those communities, they should not wait until there is a crisis before taking an interest. <BR /> <BR />I utterly condemn the arson attack”
“Not being from the Shankill, I thought that it was important to speak to someone with the Shankill Road in their DNA. My office reached out to my party's deputy leader, Councillor Ron McDowell, and asked whether there was any message that he wished to convey to the House. Unlike Mr Carroll, Ron works for the people of the Shankill Road every day”
“If a pastor preaching John chapter three, verse 16 outside the hospital in Coleraine can result in a successful prosecution, it is not irrational to think that there could be ramifications for reading that same Bible verse inside the hospital. Does the Minister share my concerns that the very fact that the issue is concerning Christians is testament to how badly drafted that law is?”
“A Stormont that preserves listed buildings that are associated with those who want to destroy Northern Ireland is not a Stormont that is delivering for unionism but one that is picking and choosing by keeping buildings that are a blight on Northern Ireland while leaving another building that is associated with the founders of Northern Ireland to go to rack and ruin. We need to get rid of that blight on Northern Ireland. I want to see inward investment and development at the Maze, but that cannot happen while the hospital wing and the associated buildings connected with that shrine are left in place.”
“Those buildings were judged by the Historic Buildings Council to have no architectural merit. They were constructed in the 1970s, yet £324,000 of public money has been spent on their upkeep. Why? To preserve the hospital wing where Bobby Sands killed himself and to keep an IRA shrine up to standard. Keeping those obnoxious buildings offers nothing for future generations. Keeping them is blocking regeneration of the site. Keeping them is stopping inward investment and job creation.”
“I bring to the House a tale of two listed buildings. One is a beautiful building that is central to the history of Northern Ireland and its founding. The other is an ugly group of buildings that are judged to have no architectural merit. The first is Craigavon House, a historic Victorian mansion built in the 1870s and home of the Craigavon family. From its steps, the Ulster covenant, the birthright of Northern Ireland, was first read. It was, of course, the nerve centre from which the historic UVF, which went off to fight and die for freedom in the fields of France and Flanders, was formed. In spite of the promises contained in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, it has been sadly left to go to rack and ruin. <BR /> <BR />The other group of buildings that I want to mention is at the Maze.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I did not hear him say that he would agree to meet me and those parents. He may have forgotten to leave that in. If he wants to come back in and commit in Hansard to that meeting, I would very much appreciate it. <BR /> <BR />There are concerns about the Bill, but I see no reason why, at this stage, Members should not support it to get to Committee Stage, where it will go through the usual process of Committee scrutiny. Let us see what comes out at the other end. Members will have the opportunity to amend it at a further stage, so I am happy to see the Bill go to Committee with those stipulations and safeguards in place.”
“On that basis, Minister, I trust that we can meet in the coming days and that I can bring those parents to you so you can hear at first hand about the threats that their children received. They are the victims, yet they have been left in the situation where the child who carried out those threats has been permitted to come back in September, while the victims have been left out in the cold, and their concerns have not been addressed. My primary purpose today has been to seek assurances regarding the religious education element of the Bill and a commitment from the Minister. We hear plenty about safeguarding concerns. I want the Minister to be put to the test and agree to a meeting.”
“On that basis, it is not so much information-led as social media-led. If safeguarding is paramount, as it is in my eyes and head, the concerns — there are legitimate concerns out there — can be worked through at Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />I want to make a point on what we have heard about safeguarding. Minister, I contacted you about a safeguarding concern at City of Armagh High School in March. We have heard plenty from the DUP about safeguarding today. That issue has not been resolved, and I want to put you to the test on that issue. You have said that it is an EA issue. I want you to take it on board. Two parents are in the position where they have lost all faith in the school and its safeguarding policies because of what happened and the threats that were made by a newcomer child to their children.”
“It is the removal of the exemption for religious education. For clarity, it is essentially putting that provision in the Bill to take the removal out. Concerns have been raised with me on that very issue. <BR /> <BR />I turn to clause 3. We have heard quite a bit about the safeguarding aspect, and, in essence, the majority of the debate has centred around it. I have had emails in the same way as everybody else. I have also been contacted by a number of teachers who have said that this situation has been generated in the past 24 to 48 hours. It very much feels as though it has been generated for political purposes. Sinn Féin was the first out of the hatch with its social media clips and videos. That sparked a reaction from the SDLP. In 24 to 48 hours, the whole situation that we have experienced today was allowed to develop.”
“Absolutely. It is very important to have that on the record and bring that up in the debate, because the removal of clause 2 is something that has largely been passed by. I sought assurance on that.”
“You have given reassurance that you have talked to the denominations, but I have a concern that removing clause 2 from the Bill would mean that there are not the same protections as there once were.”
“I certainly welcome the Minister's clarification on that, because I do have a concern that there is an imposition here of state inspections that will weaken the Churches' perceived control. However, the Minister has given that reassurance, and I trust that that is the case. <BR /> <BR />Minister, can I take you on and ask you directly: what measures have you put in place, or will you put in place, so that, when clause 2 is taken out of the Bill, it will protect the schools? There are many schools in North Antrim that have a Christian ethos. That is their very DNA and their selling point to the local people to attract people in. Christian parents like me look at a school based on what they offer and what their ethos is. Are there any further measures that you want to put in place to protect that Christian ethos as we move forward?”
“If the legislation passes and goes to the next stage and clause 2 is removed, does that create an opt-out and give teachers an opt-out not to teach RE? I am happy to give way to the Minister as I go through my speech if he wants to clarify that.”
“In order to recognise what is happening here and why a profound change is being proposed, we have to remember the unique situation here in Northern Ireland. We need to remember that, while Protestant denominations handed over their schools to the state, the Roman Catholic Church has never handed over its schools. The only reason that the Protestant Churches handed over their schools was based on the legal assurances that they were given. Chief amongst those was the transfer, and that was dependent on provision of biblical instruction within the school day by Christians committed to the school ethos of it. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I am somewhat unclear, going by the Bill that is presented to us today, based on that and the 1986 Order.”
“Indeed, they were champions of those pieces of legislation. Look at the climate change legislation as well. Based on its own record, the SDLP cannot lecture anybody else in the House. That party wants to get back into the Executive and take up ministerial posts. I have no doubt that, if people endorsed it, the SDLP would rush back and champion the Executive at every opportunity. <BR /> <BR />Back to the Bill that we have here in front of us. I thank you very much for your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will focus my attention and my short remarks tonight primarily on clause 2 of the Bill, as it has largely been passed by. That clause removes the exemption for religious education from inspections.”
“What we have seen here is the blame game in all its glory. Members have been in full flow looking for media clips. I find it hard to follow Mr McCrossan, who is championing. He championed the 27% increase for MLAs to then have his wee flippant remarks, and I liken him to Keir Starmer, because, indeed, that is the man whom his party partners over on the Benches of Westminster. On that basis, those are hollow words from Mr McCrossan. Moving on, I will get back to the Bill that we have in front of us, but I could not let that go past without clipping Mr McCrossan's wings.”
“Will the €11·7 million bovine TB project include consideration of a Northern Ireland-wide badger cull, given the long-standing use of such measures in the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, in GB, or will the North Antrim farmer who is outside the current pilot area simply get more paperwork from you while their herd continues to be destroyed by bovine TB?”
“Can the Minister tell the House how many Loughs Agency staff appointments required retrospective approval from the North/South Ministerial Council because they had been made before approval was obtained?”
“The statement mentions the continued commitment to the A5. The judgement was a direct result of climate change legislation that was passed by the House and has to be owned by the House. Has the Minister asked her Executive colleagues to revisit the net zero policy not just in relation to the A5 but across the board? That flawed legislation needs to be binned, and the economy and building infrastructure in Northern Ireland's need to be put first.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Commons, verbal abuse of a Member of Parliament is categorised as contempt of Parliament. Our Standing Orders make no mention of contempt of the Assembly. I believe that that is a serious defect. What will be done to address that in light of last Wednesday's Executive Office Committee meeting?”
“Ms Fearon should be required to re-attend the Committee and learn some manners.”
“We know that, under section 45 of the 1998 Act, the Assembly has the power to compel witnesses to attend.”
“I am pleased to say that the public have had their say in the court of appeal that is social media about the actions that took place at the Committee last Wednesday. It is noteworthy that, when asked about her language, Fidelma Fearon told 'The Irish News' that she would not apologise. In the House of Commons, the verbal abuse of a Member of Parliament is categorised as a contempt of Parliament. Our Standing Orders oddly make no mention of contempt of the Assembly, and something needs to be done urgently to address that serious defect. <BR /> <BR />Ms Fearon's group is in receipt of tens of thousands of pounds of public funding, including generous sums from the Executive Office, and it was a member of the Executive Office Committee whom she decided to abuse.”
“In Wednesday's Committee, we had an example of that attitude of the heart coming to the surface through what was said, and I put it on record here today. I apologise to the House for using these terms, but Fidelma Fearon from Minority Ethnic Support Armagh was clearly picked up on the mic as saying:”
“However, the comments from a member on the first panel were even more telling as the radical left mask started to slip. The Bible tells us:”
“Last Wednesday, the Committee for the Executive Office hosted two panels as part of its evidence-gathering process on the race relations strategy. Members from both panels were highly political in the evidence that they presented to us. The second panel included Daniel Holder, a director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice. He made the outrageous statement that Northern Ireland needs to make contingency plans for the possibility of a Reform UK Government and branded the party leading the polls in the United Kingdom as far right. That showed such contempt for the views of millions of people right across our United Kingdom and, indeed, tens of thousands in this part of our UK. <BR /> <BR />Those remarks were rightly challenged and called out by me and by other Committee members.”
“The Bill shows complete disregard for that and, in its genesis, is a party that, either through the Bill, the Minister of Justice or the AERA Minister, has shown disinterest in rural life and shown that it is so disconnected from rural life and countryside people that it simply disregards their concerns and sets them aside. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the Assembly has to think seriously about the Bill, based on the intervention of former Attorney General Mr John Larkin KC and on the raft of queries from Members. I do not believe that the Bill will be amendable when it gets to Committee Stage. Based on the grey areas and the catch-all mentality, I trust that Members will vote against it this evening.”
“That means that anybody who goes out shooting, such as people on stag dos, lads' weekends or whatever — take the dogs with them, go shooting — and their dog runs off and follows its natural instinct — the term in the Bill is "searching for and pursuing" — they could be liable. My goodness, is that the place that we have got to? <BR /> <BR />The final points that I want to make relate to the wider rural impact of what the Alliance Party and Mr Blair are trying to do. For many people involved in these activities, this debate is not abstract politics. It concerns farming, pest control, rural employment and long-standing community traditions.”
“When there are a number of people out individually hunting with their dogs, and if those dogs or, indeed, those shooters come together, under article 23I, they would be breaking the law:”
“We need to get to a point where there is absolute clarity. I would rather that the element of "enclosed space" were left out than have a broad-brush catch-all approach. That is what concerns me about the vagueness of the Bill. Five years in prison or £20,000, and, yet, at this stage, it is a catch-all approach, and that is what we are going with in the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I return to Mr Larkin. He raised concerns regarding compatibility with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the lack of legal certainty in the offences created. When a former Attorney General raises serious concerns about legislative competence and European Convention on Human Rights compliance, the Assembly should not simply brush those concerns aside. <BR /> <BR />I will return to an issue that was not fully expanded on.”
“I do not want to misrepresent the Bill's sponsor when we talk about "enclosed spaces" in this "catch-all" approach so that we do not leave anything out. It is very telling, and it is about enclosed spaces. I get that, but there is a pattern. Earlier on, we talked about hunting and how many dogs — we were talking about a pack of hunting dogs. Now we are talking about enclosed spaces. The more that we probe, the deeper that we get into the detail of the Bill — a Bill that has been introduced, and now we are having a debate on it — the more that we see that there is a lack of clarity. When severe penalties are included in the Bill, there needs to be clarity. There should be no opportunity for wriggle room. There should be no, "Well, he thinks that, and the other person thinks the other".”
“The "catch-all option". Did you hear that, Members? It is to include everything. The Bill sponsor has introduced a Bill and he is not 100% sure of the definitions, but, just to ensure that he catches all, it means all things to all people.”
“Mr Blair, does that include barns, drains, stone piles and farm buildings? The House must interrogate such definitions.”
“We read in the Bill that it is "one or more dogs"; then, it talks about "more than two dogs". Lord Bonomy rejected the idea that two dogs are sufficient for effective flushing on rough terrain and in woodland. He made the point that a two-dog limit could prolong pursuit and reduce effectiveness. The Bill raises significant concerns regarding terrier work. Members may not like the activity, but legislation should be grounded in evidence, not sentiment. The Bonomy review concluded that there is a strong case for permitting the use of terriers below ground to complete fox control effectively and prevent further livestock damage, yet the Bill adopts a far more restrictive approach. Once again, the drafting of the Bill is unclear. The term "enclosed space" is not properly defined, as Mr Frew set out.”