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 8 of 45.
“In the past five years, 89,281 cattle have been subject to compulsory removal due to reacting to the skin test, and 7,997 cattle have been subject to compulsory removal due to a positive blood test. That means that 97,278 cattle have destroyed since 2021 due to TB. Having no problem with killing cattle, which impacts livelihoods, but being happy to protect badgers, which are the most common carriers of TB in animals, is certainly not a policy that I can support. <BR /> <BR />The only data that we have to rely on to estimate the percentage of badgers infected with TB is based on roadkill. The most up-to-date figures show that 21% of the badgers killed on the roads in 2024 tested positive for TB, which, I believe, underestimates the scale of infection. <BR /> <BR />The motion puts the cost to the Department of bTB at £60 million.”
“The latest figures published by DAERA expose the fact that the strategy being deployed by the Minister to tackle bovine TB is failing, and failing miserably at that. Whose future is being put at risk due to that chronic failure? Is it those who champion the protection of the disease-ridden badger? Is it the Department? No. It is the hard-working farmer who sees their livelihood put at risk every time a reactor goes down on their farm. When I engage with the agri-industry, I hear that TB is the greatest concern on any family farm, due to the financial and mental health impact on it of there being reactors. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at the figures for the past five years to familiarise ourselves with the extent of the bTB problem in Northern Ireland.”
“— and shuts the door on an entire sector. That will put at risk, rather than positively impact on, future exploration in Northern Ireland. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“We are seeing the continued embedding of the climate-driven approach that we have taken to legislation here, whereby entire sectors are ruled out, regardless of our needs or of potential future opportunities. The Bill does not future-proof; it takes the green ideology that has already resulted in the A5 being torpedoed and other road infrastructure projects being put back. It builds on that lunacy —”
“Leadership is not about simply counting responses and legislating accordingly, because of the views of organised and motivated green activists. <BR /> <BR />What about the long-term consequences of the Bill? They are clear: the Bill will create a permanent legislative barrier to accessing resources that may lie beneath our feet. That is not to say that those resources are there; it is about leaving the door open so that, if we were to explore and find something, we could utilise it. The Bill firmly shuts that door, and fresh primary legislation would be required to reverse its consequences. <BR /> <BR />We are witnessing something wider than petroleum policy.”
“The Member has completely missed the point that I was making. What mess would we be in now if a law had come in that meant that RHI could not be changed? Yet today we are being asked to put through to the Committee a Bill that would mean that the door would be entirely shut and that fresh legislation would be required for such measures to come back in. Why on earth would someone looking at the world today think that we would want to remove the possibility of servicing and securing our energy market in Northern Ireland? <BR /> <BR />At paragraph 7, the Department relies on consultation responses, noting that a large majority of people supported a ban. My goodness, public consultation is not a substitute for strategic responsibility.”
“— with wind or solar, because they change, whereas oil and gas are reliable; they can be depended on. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give way.”
“Yes, the last licence was handed back in 2020, but who is to say that new discoveries will not be made in the future? The licences were introduced because, as paragraph 4 tells us:”
“Yes, it says that that would not be significant, but that is hardly grounds for bringing in what is before the House today and banning any further exploration of the possibilities. It may come as a surprise to some in the House, but it is not unknown for Departments to get things wrong. All that we have to do is look at the Department that is advancing the Bill today. What if the House had legislated in such a way as to make it impossible to change the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme? The Bill seeks not to regulate but to permanently shut the door on oil and gas exploration in Northern Ireland. There is not much thought in the Bill for the energy security of tomorrow. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 4 of the memorandum acknowledges the wider energy context that resulted in licences being introduced in the 1960s.”
“Paragraph 6 plainly states that petroleum exploration is considered to be incompatible with those climate objectives — the same climate objectives set by this place. Those climate objectives mean that we cannot even build the A5, but that is what the Bill is founded on. It is based on flawed decisions taken in this place that have been found to stifle much-needed infrastructure safety upgrades. <BR /> <BR />This Bill is not being advanced because the resources are not there or because they have been fully explored and found to be inadequate; it is being advanced because the Executive have decided, because of the green ideology, that those resources must never be developed. That is despite the fact that paragraph 5 of the memorandum admits that there would be economic benefit to Northern Ireland.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will respond briefly to Mr Buckley. As we have seen, it is a cert that using renewable energy will drive our energy costs up, because everybody in Northern Ireland will have to pay for the infrastructure. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of the Bill is not to regulate, to control or to restrict but to abolish the opportunity for us to do further exploration. Why? Is it because of economics or evidence? We have already heard that there are gaps in the evidence. Not a bit of it. Paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum makes it clear that the policy is driven by the need to align climate change commitments and the transition to net zero. My goodness, that is what it is: the ideology of constantly going after green targets and the foolish lunacy of net zero.”
“The British Government will not drill — they will not utilise that — but they are happy to go to Norway, which drills the oil from the North Sea, to get it and bring it to Northern Ireland. It just does not make sense.”
“<BR /> <BR />Go back to the 1964 Act. Why did we have those provisions? They were introduced to permit the Department to grant licences for the exploration and production of oil and gas. The Bill removes the legal ability for Northern Ireland even to consider developing our oil and gas resources. All we have to do is look around at what is happening in the world today. We have talked about the cost of living and debated what is happening in Iran. If we could play our part — if we were to discover such natural resources in Northern Ireland — why would this place move to a point at which that could not even be explored? We have that position in the North Sea.”
“That would have been a more sensible way forward. If you have a problem with fracking, you should look at it solely. However, what we have today is a blanket ban, which will mean that, in future, if evidence is produced that we have a natural resource that we can utilise and would help to secure our energy future, this place took the decision in 2026 that it knew best. It could see into the future and did not want to utilise any of that because it would have meant setting aside our green ideology. The tentacles of this place come up now and again that it knows best. If it is anything to do with climate change, we can have nothing to do with it. That is why the blanket ban is coming in, because this place thinks that it knows better and is trying to ensure that nobody has the opportunity to do further exploration in the future.”
“Absolutely not, because the Member will hear in my speech that, while current viability has not been found, producing the Bill and pushing it forward will close down any future opportunity. On that basis, if no economic activity comes from this, why the need for legislation? Why the need to close it indefinitely? Why not let it stay open and run its course?”
“Two weeks ago, the Assembly voted against costing the net zero lunacy in Stormont Departments. Last week the House supported the idea of creating new anaerobic digesters in Northern Ireland, which will deliver the Minister's vision for stock cuts by stealth if we continue down that route. Now, this week, we have a Bill in front of us that will remove any potential for helping to secure our own energy market in the future. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is presented as merely technical legislation, but it is nothing of the sort. It is a deliberate, permanent policy choice to close down an entire sector of potential economic activity in Northern Ireland. When one reads the explanatory and financial memorandum, that reality is inescapable. Clause 1 talks about repealing key provisions of the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.”
“— and immoral sham that passes for a Government in the House led by Sinn Féin.”
“To be blunt, the response from Sinn Féin to the Lurgan bomb at the start of the month and the Dunmurry bomb on Saturday night simply has not been good enough. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to the brave officers stationed in Dunmurry, who selflessly risked their own lives to evacuate the homes of those close to where the bomb went off on Saturday evening. That brings us back to the fact that the bomb attack at the weekend is yet another reminder of the unseemly —”
“That, however, is something that many on the Sinn Féin Benches cannot say. <BR /> <BR />On 'The Nolan Show' this morning, the Chief Constable appealed for unconditional support for the PSNI: are all the parties in the House happy to offer that support? I remind Members that the Sinn Féin Member for South Antrim, Mr Declan Kearney, made it clear only a few years ago that Sinn Féin support for the PSNI has always been conditional. Perhaps the Members opposite would like to clear up that matter and disown Mr Kearney's previous comments, or is that still the Sinn Féin position here today: justifying the violence against police officers in the past and conditional support for police officers in the present?”
“It will be lost on no one that the bombing of Dunmurry PSNI station took place just days after a debate in Belfast City Hall about the statue of a convicted bomber. One cannot with any credibility defend furniture shop bomber Bobby Sands and then condemn the PSNI station bombers just days later. Both actions were reckless and evil. Indeed, the car that was used in the Dunmurry bombing was hijacked in Twinbrook, where the illegal Bobby Sands statue is located. The self-styled "First Minister for all" tells us that there was no alternative to the bombings by Sands and his colleagues, so we should not be surprised that terrorists continue to use the tactics from the Sinn Féin/IRA manual to carry out attacks on officers in 2026. Terrorism is a moral absolute: it always was and always will be wrong.”
“I will take no lectures on war from Sinn Féin, given its past, whom it associates itself with and whom it still glorifies to this day. <BR /> <BR />Nobody in this Building can do anything about what Donald Trump thinks or what he is doing in Iran, but we can do something when it comes to the policies that we support in this place. We can also lobby the British Government to take immediate action to reduce the cost-of-living burden that is affecting everybody in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />We saw the protests last week. I believe that they will grow. They not just been about what has happened in the Middle East. Look at the carbon taxes inflicted by this place. We say, "Oh, we can't do anything about it", but we can. The decisions that we take in this Building, chasing crazy net zero policies, all add to the cost and the burden and increase the cost of living.”
“<BR /> <BR />One obvious step would be a reduction in VAT on fuel, giving back to motorists at least some of what the Treasury is now taking in. The reality is that reducing fares on public transport is of little use to people living outside urban areas. I have a member of staff who lives fewer than 30 miles away from this Building. If he wants to come into the office for 9.00 am, he has to leave home before 7.00 am if he is to depend on public transport to get to work. The reality for many is that the car is not one option among many; it is the only practical option. If the Assembly is serious about helping workers and businesses, it will stop blaming events overseas that we can do absolutely nothing about and start demanding that the Government, who take more when prices rise, finally give something back.”
“They have carried a grossly unfair share of the national tax burden, and, as the protests of last week showed, growing numbers of people throughout Northern Ireland have had enough. <BR /> <BR />The crisis in the Middle East and the resultant rise in fuel prices has not only increased costs for ordinary people; it has automatically increased VAT receipts for the Government. It is one of the few taxes that rise precisely when people are under the greatest pressure, and yet there is no automatic relief in return. The motion would be far better if, instead of having a pop at Donald Trump, it called for His Majesty's Government to do something concrete about the issue. After all, the SDLP sits on the government Benches.”
“I accept that it has led to an increase in the price and in the cost of living, but the cost-of-living crisis did not begin only a month ago. Fuel prices have risen since the conflict began, but that does not change the underlying reality that over 50% of the price of every tank of fuel is not driven up by Donald Trump; it is the result of the tax system, which is out of touch with reality and urgently needs to be revised. Fuel duty and VAT together make up the majority of what people pay at the pump. Crucially, VAT is charged as a percentage, so, every time the price of fuel goes up, the tax also rises. Families and businesses pay more, and, without lifting a finger, the Treasury takes more. <BR /> <BR />Motorists, farmers and even homeowners have been taken for granted for far too long.”
“Opposition day can always bring out the best in the Executive. Indeed, we have already seen the Executive parties knocking lumps out of one another. What the motion also does is expose the SDLP. One could be forgiven for forgetting that the SDLP at Westminster sits on the Back Benches with the Labour Government. The Labour Government can take action today to do something about the cost of living. The SDLP motion begins with a false premise and builds an entire argument on it. To suggest that the pressures facing families and businesses are the result only of the conflict in the Middle East, however one wishes to define it, is simply wrong.”
“The current situation, where responsibility is passed around but no answers are given, cannot continue. The Prime Minister's handling of the Mandelson appointment has raised significant questions on vetting and has exposed weaknesses. I trust that a full review will be carried out and that vetting must take place prior to appointments to posts requiring security clearance. <BR /> <BR />There are big questions about what goes on in this devolved Administration as well. If there is a question around Ms Anderson's clearance, how much more should there have been over Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly and indeed a member of the notorious Doris family from mid-Ulster?”
“The response failed to answer those basic questions; instead, responsibility was passed elsewhere. The Minister stated that Departments determined who required clearance and, in that case, responsibility rested with Northern Ireland Departments. I then raised the matter with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister. Their responses provided no clarity either. <BR /> <BR />The position is now clear. Despite repeated questions, no authority has confirmed as a matter of fact that the Police Ombudsman holds active, developed vetting, only that it is said to be a condition of appointment. That is not good enough for a role that has access to sensitive policing information and material that may engage national security considerations. There must be clear accountability on the matter.”
“Last year, I wrote to the UK Security Minister seeking clarity on whether the current Police Ombudsman was subject to developed vetting, whether that clearance remained active and what safeguards applied to the accessing of highly sensitive or national security-related material.”
“I fear that, if we continue down that road, in a number of years, it will be RHI mark 2, and it will be traced back to the Ulster Unionists as the ones who first pushed it in the Chamber.”
“Absolutely, and how do you plan to do that without creating more AD plants? That is what you are doing here. You are creating more AD plants —.”
“That, indeed, is what the farming community is fearful of. We can bring in food scraps; that is OK. However, if you are to create more anaerobic digesters, where will the feedstock come from that goes with the slurry?”
“I am certainly not making stuff up for a TikTok, Mr Butler. In your opening remarks on AD, you said:”
“I am happy to give way, as long as you are quick and let me back in before my five minutes are up.”
“If we continue down that pathway, believing that more ADs are the answer, it will reduce stock levels and our capacity to produce food, not least because grass — .”
“That is what happens when ideology replaces evidence. <BR /> <BR />The direction of travel appears to be that farmers will be forced to separate their slurry and pay to transport those solids to the nearest AD plant. Those solids then become free feedstock for the digester. The AD operator then profits again by selling the gas that is produced. Farmers take the cost of separating, and a foreign investor takes the reward, unless those plants are to be farmer-owned and farmer-led. <BR /> <BR />Earlier today, I raised with the Agriculture Minister the issue of his draft climate action plan 2030 targets, which include a reduction of 18% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% across sheep, pigs and poultry.”
“Every acre taken out of food production and diverted to feeding an AD plant is an acre lost to producing food for our nation. Farmers who live close to existing digesters find themselves competing for land with AD operators who can afford to outbid them, not because of their efficiency or productivity but because, in some cases, up to 75% of their income comes from subsidies. That is not a level playing field. It risks fundamentally changing land use in Northern Ireland, moving away from feeding livestock and people to feeding digesters. <BR /> <BR />At a time when food security is rightly being recognised as a serious issue, pushing the most expensive form of renewable energy as a solution makes me deeply uncomfortable. It speaks more to pursuing the net zero ideology than producing cost-effective, sustainable energy.”
“Will we simply rename the subsidy and carry on, perhaps under the banner of "sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry" — otherwise known as "SULS"? I hope not. Any credible green scheme must stand on its own feet; otherwise, the taxpayer foots the bill to build it and then to run it. To operate at scale, AD plants require energy-dense feedstock. Slurry alone does not provide that. That means growing grass and crops to feed it alongside 15% to 20% of slurry solids.”
“We have not yet received the outcome of the NAP consultation, yet here we are debating a motion that appears to be pushing support for building new "super" AD plants. <BR /> <BR />Everyone needs to take a step back, remove their environmental tinted glasses and look at it from a farmer's perspective. A well-established and highly organised lobby is seeking to establish AD plants right across Northern Ireland. I support cost-effective green energy. However, if that is truly the answer to our agrienvironmental challenges, we must ask ourselves a very simple question: why does it require such a heavy subsidy to be currently viable? Currently, those plants rely heavily on renewables obligation certificates (ROCs), which are due to end in the next five years. When ROCs disappear, what then?”
“Last week, the Assembly failed to support a motion to cost the net zero madness that each Department is chasing. One week later, we have the Ulster Unionist Party, which wants to simply tinker with the climate change targets, now pushing the debate to create the most expensive form of green energy. <BR /> <BR />I cannot help but cast my mind back to the NAP consultation event that was held in Greenmount in May 2025. The clear impression that I had on leaving that meeting was that the solution that was being peddled by the Department was the creation of new large-scale anaerobic digestion plants, with farmers expected to pay to have their solids separated and transported to those plants.”
“I have listened intently to what some Members have said, but is this not the same argument that we heard for hydrogen, which is that it could be used as a blend for natural gas? Is this the new hydrogen? Is this the new way in which the Assembly wants to head?”
“The family are clear that they have no criticism to make of the staff: quite the opposite. I simply ask this: how can a relatively new hospital have been overwhelmed to such a degree?”
“My office was contacted recently by a constituent whose family member had two spells in the South West Acute Hospital. In spite of being in hospital for over a week and a half, the lady was never admitted to a ward, spending the entire stay either on a trolley or in a chair in A&E. In the final few days, she was in a ward corridor.”
“Minister, your draft climate action plan stipulates a reduction by 2030 of 18% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% in sheep, pigs and poultry. Can you give the agriculture industry·— remember: that is the one that you are meant to champion — a commitment that your action plan will not include stock cuts?”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I want to comment briefly on the fact that the Bill creates scope for "belief marriage" as distinct from religious marriage. That is not my own world view, but I have two points to raise on the issue. A marriage is a solemn occasion on which individuals make lifelong commitments to each other. I do not see anything in the Bill that is designed to preserve the solemnity of the marriage ceremony. Does the Minister have any plans to address that concern or would he be broadly supportive of an amendment that did so? Finally, is there anything in the Bill to ensure that marriages do not become a profit-making exercise for those who perform the ceremony? I trust that the Minister will pick up some of those points, if not them all, in his next comments on the Bill.”
“It has been the foundation upon which families have been built and the environment in which children have been raised. In all the Executive's strategies and policy documents, I would like to see a greater willingness not merely to regulate marriage but to recognise and promote its value as a union between one man and one woman and a stabilising force —”
“All legislation should be grounded in evidence, not assumption. It is on that basis that I ask him whether arranged marriage within the Muslim community in Northern Ireland is a concern for him and his Department. <BR /> <BR />I also note that, with the passage of the Bill, the age of consent for sexual activity and the marriage age will — for the first time, I believe — diverge. The law will permit a 16-year-old to consent to sexual activity but prohibit them from entering into marriage. That represents a significant shift and a departure from the historical Christian understanding of marriage in our society. I regret that development. That brings me to a broader point. Marriage, as a lifelong union of one man and one woman, has historically provided not only personal stability but social stability.”
“If that is the rationale, what assessment has the Department made of the scale of forced marriages involving under-18s in Northern Ireland? Is that issue concentrated within any particular section of our community? Has the Department identified specific cultural or societal contexts in which that problem arises? If the draft legislation is being driven by identifiable patterns, whether cultural or otherwise, the House is entitled to clarity. We know that child marriage is a feature of Islamic countries. Has the growth of the Muslim community here in Northern Ireland seen the problem increase in the Province? <BR /> <BR />In his opening remarks, the Minister raised concern about people coming to Northern Ireland from countries that have changed their marriage age from 16 to 18.”
“Regarding Part 2 of the Bill, paragraph 13 of the Department's consultation document from November 2021 states:”
“I will make a number of general points about the Bill and seek further clarity from the Minister on why it was introduced. <BR /> <BR />At a surface level, there is much in the Bill that will find favour with the House. There is a degree of common sense in clause 5, which raises the minimum age for marriage from 16 to 18. We arrive, however, at the curious position in which a 16-year-old is deemed sufficiently mature to be able to vote in elections yet insufficiently mature to enter into marriage. Northern Ireland is well behind Great Britain in making that change. The Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that the Commons' legislation reached this legislative stage back in 2022, with the law being changed in England and Wales in 2023.”