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 5 of 45.
“<BR /> <BR />Whether or not one likes to admit it, foxes are often a menace to farmers. Foxes are classed as vermin by a sheep farmer who is trying to protect the lambs in their field. Foxes are classed as vermin by a poultry farmer who wants to ensure that they do not come and disturb their birds. Foxes have to be controlled, but how do we control them? There is evidence that alternatives, such as shooting or snaring, produce poorer welfare outcomes than a quick kill by dogs. That is an uncomfortable fact for some campaigners and, indeed, for some in the House, but it is a fact that deserves serious consideration. Again, I observe that the Bill is so broad in its reach that it would potentially criminalise an innocent dog walker, never mind someone who shoots with dogs. <BR /> <BR />We come to the two-dog limit.”
“That is OK, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you judge the person and party who brings something forward on their other actions. <BR /> <BR />I will bring it back to the Bill. The Bill appears to ignore the evidence that has been gathered by previous independent inquiries. The Burns inquiry in England, which was mentioned by Mr Buckley, and the Bonomy review in Scotland both examined those issues in detail. Lord Burns stated that the inquiry panel did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that hunting involved significantly worse welfare effects than other lawful methods of control. This is not a case of the proponents of the Bill standing up to prevent the suffering of animals while the rest of us are heartless on the issue. That is certainly not the case. The evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr Blair would have us all believe.”
“When he stands up to protect foxes, I take that —”
“The wording of clause 3 on trail hunting is so sweeping that I am in receipt of correspondence from members of the rural community who argue that it could even affect farmers who use dogs to locate vermin, such as rats that live in, or under, sheds but not under the ground. The Assembly should not criminalise rural activity simply because some lobby groups dislike fox hunts and shooting as a sport or, indeed, as a method of dealing with threats to farm animals. Some of us in the House find Mr Blair's concern — and, indeed, that of the Alliance Party, which goes to great lengths to protect foxes but has no concern for the unborn in this country —”
“In fact, I would argue that there is no question that, for those who go out to shoot and take a dog with them, the legislation will have an impact on their hobby and sport. If the Bill passes to Committee Stage, there will be a great deal of work to do. The Assembly should consider seriously whether, because of its drafting and how broad it is, the Bill should get beyond its current stage. <BR /> <BR />If one sends a dog into a wooded area to flush out a bird while shooting, you are using it to "search for" an animal that is "pursued". Those are the very words that are employed in the Bill, and they appear repeatedly in clauses 8, 9 and 10. <BR /> <BR />We move on to trail hunting.”
“However, he needs to go back to the drawing board because, as I warn the House, when we have a former Attorney General pointing out the flaws in the Bill and what it could mean not just for a farmer or somebody who lives in the countryside but anybody who owns a dog, we need to heed that advice. <BR /> <BR />If you want to criminalise things, you need to be clear about what the criminal conduct is. The Bill is certainly not clear. The offence captures activities that are far beyond traditional fox hunting. That is why I say that it is broad in scope. If we are to believe the Bill sponsor about his intention behind that, why has he left the door so wide open that that could affect people who use dogs in connection with shooting? He says, "Oh no, no — that is not the intention". However, that is what the Bill allows to happen.”
“Let us look at what the Bill says about hunting. How does it define it? The issue has been covered in much detail. The wording under clause 2 tells us that "hunting" includes "searching for and pursuing". That is what, I believe, Mr Larkin is depending on and why he includes the example of a dog that is in the park, and it gets off its lead or its owner lets it off to exercise and it pursues a mammal. It is quite clear, in black and white, what that can mean. Mr Larkin points to the example of an elderly person who is walking her dog through a park, and the dog pursues a wild mammal in the course of another activity. That is the phrase that is used in the Bill, "another activity". I believe Mr Blair when he tells us that that is not his intention. That may be so.”
“If we have a KC, a former Attorney General, saying that the Bill opens the door, that does not mean that nobody could be convicted going forward. We have already heard today about vexatious complaints. I have a big fear that people will use the Bill to make vexatious complaints, either in reporting somebody who is out walking their dog and the dog gets away or, indeed, somebody who owns a firearm, such as a neighbour whom they do not like. They could make a complaint resulting in the police coming out and lifting that person's guns because they have allegedly committed an offence under the Bill.”
“I thank the Bill sponsor for trying to set that out, but, when I listen to him and hear what his intent is while, on the other hand, hearing what the former Attorney General says, whom am I to believe? If I go into court, whose evidence will I depend on? Will I go back to Hansard and say, "Oh, but, but, but the Bill sponsor said that it does not include walking with your dog", or will I take the advice of the KC whose report, Mr Blair said on the radio this morning, he has considered? He obviously has not taken that on board or done anything with it. <BR /> <BR />Time and time again today, we have heard, "Oh, but nobody in GB has been convicted", but that is not to say that nobody will be convicted.”
“To me, that is as clear as mud. How can anyone argue that "another activity" does not include walking your dog? I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor if he wants to come in at any point. To me, "another activity" could mean anything to anybody, and that is why I say that the Bill is vague and badly written. I am not blaming those in the Bill Office. They have done their job and can only work with the tools that they are given, but, for goodness' sake, that is not some crazy reading of the Bill; it is what it says in black and white on blue paper.”
“Fair enough, but let us look at clause 2 — that is the important one — which says:”
“The first thing that strikes me about the Bill, as it should anyone who reads it carefully, is that it is astonishingly broad in scope. The former Attorney General for Northern Ireland John Larkin KC described it as a "confused and unnecessarily complex" Bill. Why? Let us begin with what it says about clause 1 in the explanatory memorandum:”
“The Bill is the latest assault on the countryside by the Alliance Party, be that through its intended consequences or the multiple unintended consequences that have been explored this afternoon and into this evening. <BR />The debate has got to the stage of asking this question: is the Assembly prepared to pass vague and badly drafted legislation? It is, of course, criminal legislation with serious consequences for rural life. I have to emphasise that. We have now explored the issue in depth. Is the Assembly prepared to rubber-stamp vague and badly drafted criminal legislation and send it through to the next stage? Even this place should aspire to be better than that.”
“As we have heard, since the creation of the Communities in Transition programme in 2016, the same eight areas have received approximately £26 million between them. Time after time, TEO officials have been unable to tell me, and, junior Minister, you did not answer Mr McGrath, so can you tell me when a community in transition becomes transitioned? When will we see the money and the focus move away from those eight areas to other areas that need an injection of money and regeneration investment?”
“The Minister's statement allocates £4 million to a new bovine TB pilot. Will the scheme involve a badger cull? Many in the farming community believe that we will simply be throwing good money after bad until we finally address the main cause of the spread of bovine TB.”
“— in aiding and abetting IRA murder in Northern Ireland.”
“It is time that the Irish Government were held accountable for being an active participant —”
“On the day of that bombing, another bomb was planted in Tullyhommon, targeting a local Boys' and Girls' Brigade parade. Thankfully, it failed to go off. The command wire for that bomb went across the border. No one ever stood before a court charged with an offence in either case. There are multiple examples of times when the IRA murdered innocent people and then scurried across the border to safety. Once there, they cited the constitution of the Irish Republic in order to escape justice. <BR /> <BR />I will read into the record the last section of a letter from Tom Travers, which was published in 'The Irish Times' in April 1994:”
“That was not an isolated issue. Before the importation of Semtex, through the worst days of the Troubles, IRA bombs repeatedly used Irish industrial explosives. Hundreds died, and thousands were injured, Mr Kelly, by explosives from the Irish Republic. The Irish Government knew that they were being used and did nothing to stop it. Even when the IRA moved away from using Irish Industrial Explosives material, the bomb that was deployed in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday was built in the safety of the Irish Republic.”
“The Dublin Government love to talk about truth, accountability and legacy. They even have a case before the European Court of Justice. However, let us have the full truth: the explosives that devastated towns across Northern Ireland did not simply appear; large quantities of commercial explosives that were manufactured in the Republic of Ireland repeatedly found their way into the hands of the IRA. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented fact in Irish Government files. <BR /> <BR />The booklet, 'Newry and a Border between "Truth & Justice"' references the discovery in Newry in 1976 of two and a half tons of explosives, including commercial explosives that were manufactured by Irish Industrial Explosives Ltd in County Meath. The army stated that there was enough explosive material to make 60 car bombs.”
“Thank you, Minister. You mentioned the central index with regard to accessing health records. That is certainly welcome, and it is making progress. However, we have heard at the Committee that, with some of the trusts, the condition that the records are being kept in means that they are being exposed to the elements. Do you need to go a step further in that it is not just a central record or a central index of all the records that you need but you need to bring them all to the one place and ensure that they are kept in a safe environment such as PRONI? The Committee visited it. They are first-class facilities with easy access, and everything is kept in order. My big concern from what we have heard is that the health service is lagging behind in the way that it stores the records and the condition that it keeps them in.”
“You talked about records having to be "borne in mind". What has that got to do with a posthumous date? Victims and survivors should not be discriminated against and not allowed into the scheme because the state, health trusts or religious institutions do not have the necessary records available. I heard that nonsense — nonsense is what it is — at Committee last week. Victims and survivors should not be discriminated against because somebody has not got their paperwork sorted out. A person was either in one of those institutions or they were not: it should be as simple as that. TEO introduced the admissions-based legislation, and it is trying to narrow the parameters as to who should and should not get in. That is not right.”
“I can understand why they will leave this place feeling let down. People came to the Committee to give evidence and made themselves very vulnerable in doing so. They gave first-hand accounts of what they experienced and what happened to them in those institutions. The majority of Committee members, including me, tried our best to set up a scheme that would recognise that and not discriminate against anybody by a date being left in the legislation.”
“I understand the pushback from the junior Minister and the concern that she has raised — I take those points on board — but my fear is that if Mr Carroll does not move his amendment and put it to the vote, and if there is talk behind the scenes, there is no guarantee that the amendment will make it on to the Marshalled List at Further Consideration Stage. On that basis, I encourage him to move his amendment. If discussions need to take place further down the line, they can take place and a further amendment brought back from TEO on that basis. Those are my remarks on the second group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />People will leave here disappointed today. Many victims and survivors came into the process with optimism, but I believe that the news that they got at the start of the week has altered that. My thoughts are with them today.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The overwhelming evidence that the Committee received related to the removal of the posthumous date. I have come to the conclusion that, with that date still in the legislation, I am happy to support Sinéad's amendment to have a £12,000 payment. If we were looking at it with an inflationary increase, it would be between £13,000 and £13,500, as has been set out by Sinéad. I am happy to support her amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 30 recognises a small group of people.”
“I said that the posthumous date and the amount payable were interlinked, and I was clear that, if the posthumous date was removed, I would have settled and compromised on the £10,000 —.”
“However, to go back to the reasoning for the Bill and its architecture, which is an admissions-based payment scheme: nobody should be left out because of the inclusion of a date. I deeply regret that the posthumous date will still be in the Bill after today. <BR /> <BR />The Committee approached the Bill with the moral perspective of doing what was right. We left aside the religion of the institutions; that did not come into our thinking. It was a case of what was morally right to do by the victims and survivors. I look at it as a shame — a shame — that that amendment was not allowed to be debated on the Floor. Fair is fair, whether you were in one of these institutions or you were not. If you were in an institution, you should be entitled to an admissions-based payment.”
“The inclusion of the posthumous date of 29 September 2011, as set out in clause 31(5)(b), excludes and discriminates against people who were in institutions. I assure those who are watching that the Committee took every opportunity in front of it to try to make sure that that would not happen, but we tried in vain. I will look back on that with deep regret, because the Bill is going forward today with something that we could not sort out at Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />At Committee Stage, members raised legitimate concerns regarding the additional costs that would be incurred by removing that posthumous date. It is a democratic process, so they are entitled to set out their concerns.”
“The amendments in this group, particularly those that would amend clause 31, are those on which the Committee spent the most time. The Committee invested significant amounts of time listening to and taking evidence from people who came forward. The whole idea of that was to ensure that the Bill would be the best that it could be within its limited scope. <BR /> <BR />We cannot get away from the fact that the redress scheme was created as an admissions-based scheme. That was part of our deliberations. People who spent time in one of those institutions — whether it was a private, religious or state institution is immaterial — should not be discriminated against or excluded by a date. From the get-go, the architecture of the Bill was that it would be an admissions-based payment.”
“You talk about lived experience and the standardisation process that we will enter into, yet the legislation contains a posthumous date. That discriminates against people who were admitted to one of those settings but, because of the date, will not qualify. You cannot have it both ways.”
“Those are my comments on the group 1 amendments.”
“I was willing to compromise when we were able to get the Committee from 14 days to 21 days, but I am happy with Mr Carroll's amendment No 21. On that basis, I am content that the period to apply for JR be extended to 28 days. Regardless of whether it is the mind of the House that it be 21 or 28 days, it is very important for the wording to mean that that period is from the date that the person is made aware of the decision, because we need to give those people as much time as possible to apply. They have waited for years to see the legislation get to this stage, so the least that we can do is give them adequate time, should they be turned down at the first hurdle and a judicial review be required, to get the necessary legal advice and, if necessary, the legal representation to take forward a judicial review.”
“Has agreement been reached on the need to make sure that contributions are paid by those organisations that reside in the South so that they cannot hide behind the fact that they are in another jurisdiction? I want to hear from the junior Ministers about the steps that they, or the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, have taken to ensure that the South plays its role in handing over not only any information that may be available but the contributions that need to come from there. <BR /> <BR />In his intervention, Mr Stewart made a number of points about amendment No 20. Yes, I was deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with the time limit of 14 days in the Bill as introduced, as it is a significant departure from usual practice. Indeed, usual practice ranges from 30 days to six weeks or three months.”
“I absolutely agree with the Deputy Chair of the Committee. We need to make sure that those whom we task with going after those organisations seek justice and accountability and that they will not be put off by those who hide behind the fact that they have no capital. If they have assets, they have capital, and that should be available to fund part of the process, which includes the inquiry and the redress scheme. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 stand in the name of Mr Carroll. I have no problem with any of them and am happy to support them. I put this to whichever junior Minister responds to the debate on the group 1 amendments: there is all this talk at all these meetings of cross-border bodies, including the North/South Ministerial Council, but how many times has the Bill been raised at them? Has it been raised?”
“If systemic failings are found to have occurred in institutions that have cash or assets, we need to do everything in our power to make sure that they pay towards the scheme. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 —.”
“I trust that none of those who are in charge of enacting the legislation will allow so-called charities that are asset-rich but cash-poor to shield those assets and keep them aside so that they cannot be sought for their contribution.”
“It will bring some form of closure for many and for some who take part in the inquiry, but it is not the end of the road, and it will not bring complete closure. That is why we need to have contributions. Indeed, the Deputy Chair alluded to it. It is something that the Committee grappled with at length. We were told that we could not put anything like that in the Bill, but the Committee took the stance that it was a red line. We needed something included in the Bill for future legislation so that, if systemic failings are identified, the House and the Government will pursue those who are responsible. <BR /> <BR />I have a slight concern regarding new clause 12A(3)(c).”
“What was important for them was to get to the truth and to finally get some acknowledgement from the religious institutions that what took place in their settings was wrong. For many, this will be the first time that they have got any form of justice, the first time that they have been listened to and the first time that oral testimonies will be taken forward in a way that will bring justice and bring those accountable to task. That is very important. <BR /> <BR />The state should not be left to pick up the cost for the entire redress scheme and the inquiry. It is very important for victims and survivors that the settings that allowed that practice of abuse to happen are brought to task.”
“I absolutely agree with the Chair's contribution. The pathways that led people to the institutions were great. They were vast. That is why I am glad that the Committee unanimously got to the position and pushed to make sure that it was included in the Bill so that people can identify themselves in it. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee Stage, I had two objectives that I wanted to see delivered in the legislation. The groundwork for one of those objectives was delivered with amendment No 10, which is new clause 12A. That relates to the contributions that are very important moving forward. Many victims and survivors who gave testimony to the Committee do not care about the money from the redress scheme.”
“Their stories are paramount to ensuring that no voice is left out of the inquiry, and it gives as many people as possible the opportunity to have their thoughts heard and their experience considered.”
“I believe that is important to ensure that a firm foundation is laid for the duration of the inquiry, and there is no better place to start a public inquiry than to hear directly from those who suffered harm at the hands of the institutions. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are about people seeing themselves as being part of the Bill, which is very important. The Bill relates not only to religious institutions and state-run settings but to people who were in private settings and those who worked in them. The inquiry must hear from those people. Part of the deliberation and focus on ensuring that that was included in the Bill was so that people can read the Bill and see for themselves that they are part of it. That is why the Committee pushed for private settings to be included.”
“<BR /> <BR />Moving on to the amendments, I start with amendment No 1, tabled in the name of the Chair, Paula Bradshaw. It is a very important amendment that will ensure that the terms of reference are published in a timely manner. I say this to the Executive Office: the House will not have seen the completed terms of reference before Members are asked that the Bill be given full approval at Final Stage. I trust that those who are charged with writing the terms of reference have listened to the victims and survivors and to the Committee members and will take those points on board. In particular, as I mentioned at Committee, I want to see that birth mothers are called forward first to give evidence in the inquiry.”
“The Committee has tried, and it has tried in vain, to include as many people as possible in order to recognise the hurt and trauma that many victims and survivors experienced in those places and to recognise that what was allowed to happen was not right. As we looked back and heard from those who gave oral testimonies, we recognised that what was permitted to happen was a shame. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased to see that the Executive Office has taken on board many of the Committee's amendments and tabled them in its own wording. It has listened; it has reacted; and it has put the amendments into its own words. On that basis, I pay tribute to the officials who came to the Committee, listened to our concerns and did something about it.”
“Like all other members of the Committee who have spoken before me, I want Hansard to record my appreciation and thanks to all the victims and survivors who stepped forward to give evidence to the Committee in the room, at the stakeholder events or through correspondence. The oral testimonies that we heard were powerful, as many victims and survivors relived their traumatic experiences that took place in the institutions, the laundries, the workhouses or, indeed, the private settings. <BR /> <BR />From the outset of hearing the testimonies, I knew that the Bill would leave many people disappointed. The very legislation itself, when it was introduced, was of limited scope.”
“Many others, including me, see it as yet another reason why the licence fee must go and why there is a duty on unionism in the House to call out the terrorist acts of the bombers who sit on the Sinn Féin Benches.”
“Yesterday's ruling raises profound questions about how the Police Ombudsman's Office has allowed itself to be unlawfully weaponised by republicans and bombers such as Gerry Kelly and Pat Sheehan, who sit on the Sinn Féin Benches. Those men have the gall to stand up and lecture the House on human rights. No remorse; no shame. Terrorists is what they are. <BR /> <BR />It also raises profound questions for our national broadcaster, the BBC. The BBC reported extensively on the original discredited findings, but, yesterday, it completely ignored the fact that those same findings must now carry a notice that the watchdog exceeded its legal powers. Many will see that as merely par for the course for a broadcaster that has lost all credibility with the public.”
“For years, findings of that nature by the Police Ombudsman have been used to demonise and discredit the good name of a proud force that lost 319 officers to terrorists. Let us be clear: it is a scandal that should have seen Marie Anderson driven from office rather than permitted to see out her term. It showed how, under successive ombudsmen, the system was weaponised against a force that, through 30 years of terror, formed the thin green line between order and chaos. It was because the RUC was so effective in countering the terrorist threat that it became such a target.”
“I welcome yesterday's ruling on the unlawful findings of collusive behaviour against former RUC officers.”
“— and extend SEN provision until the age of 25.”
“We need a transition from a statutory educational right to an adult disability and social care framework. That will take investment, not only in our special schools, but in our adult centres that are, in some cases, sadly, no longer fit for purpose or suitable to send a 19-year-old to in 2026. <BR /> <BR />Politics is about priorities. It is time that the Executive prioritised the money that they already get from Westminster —”