Debate contribution: Legislation Programme 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Legislation Programme 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5176158
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Even the cheerleaders who cried the loudest to bring back Stormont, with the promise that all our woes would be forgiven and a distant memory, must be very underwhelmed by the legislative programme that we have in front of us today. It is a lacklustre programme, which will just about keep the lights on, along with the non-binding motions that we debate in the Chamber. For the sake of time, I will confine my remarks to three of the Bills that are included. First up is a fisheries and water environment Bill. We are told that it will be about:
"protecting fisheries and the aquatic environment, strengthening regulatory powers to enhance enforcement, deter non-compliance, and support the delivery of key initiatives such as the Lough Neagh Action Plan".
I have no doubt that the farmer will, once again, be in the sights of the Minister. If the Minister is serious about tackling those issues, I trust that he will tackle the scandal that surrounds the Loughs Agency, a body that seems to be exempt from the norms of fiscal responsibility, transparency and the proper stewardship of public funds. From the Minister's answers to questions for written answer, I know that the approved staff complement for the Loughs Agency stands at 53 full-time equivalents, a figure sanctioned by the North/South Ministerial Council and designed to ensure efficient, accountable operations. However, what do we have in reality? The agency currently employs 68 individuals: 44 are permanent, 21 are temporary and three are externally funded project staff. That is a 28% overrun with no apparent approval for the expansion. The Minister assures us that a review of the staff complement is under way, subject to approval from both sponsoring Departments. One must wonder whether that review would have happened were it not for the questions for written answer from this Back-Bencher? Despite the swollen ranks and staff, successful prosecutions for illegal net use have plummeted from 15 in 2015 to zero in 2022 and zero in 2024. In truth, the Minister does not need a Bill to deal with those issues; all that he requires is the interest to do what he should be doing. He needs to carry out an audit and put a pause on recruitment. Next, I look at the Department of Finance. The Executive have agreed to introduce a Bill:
"To include belief marriage in marriage legislation and to reform the law relating to the age of marriage (and civil partnership)."
I ask the Members to my left whether they are happy with that language. I remind them that marriage has been redefined in Northern Ireland. Whatever the Bill will do, it will operate within those parameters. While I appreciate that there are moves to increase the age for marriage across the UK in order to prevent child marriages, I observe that some in the House have pushed, through the so-called gaps in equality legislation, to hold an inquiry into lowering the age of consent. Calling for that, while pushing for the age for marriage to be raised, would be hypocritical, and I trust that no one in the Assembly will find themselves in that position. Finally, I will comment on the race equality Bill. As it will come through the Executive Office, I will have the opportunity to pay particular attention to it. From the outset, however, despite all the cheerleading from the Front Bench this afternoon, I am concerned about the concept of the Bill. Members may cite the recent unrest in our Province, but the reality is that there was not a single case where the alleged lack of legislation would have made any difference. The law provides protection for people in any walk of life from discrimination or racism. When it comes to attacks on individuals or homes, a racial motivation is, rightly, already considered as an aggravating factor. Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 makes that abundantly clear.
660 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.18 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.64).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.06 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.29 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.80 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.