Debate contribution: Timothy Gaston MLA: Committee on Standards and Privileges Report

Debate contribution by Mrs Cathy Mason on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Mrs Cathy Mason

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

2 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Timothy Gaston MLA: Committee on Standards and Privileges Report

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5356740

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The motion calls on the Assembly to impose on Mr Timothy Gaston MLA:

"the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of two sitting days".

If the motion is approved, Mr Gaston will be unable to participate in plenary proceedings on Tuesday 3 and Monday 9 February. He will also be unable to table any business or attend any Committee meetings if they happen to be scheduled to take place on those days. The Committee's adjudication report details its considerations and conclusions on the complaint by Ms Paula Bradshaw against Mr Gaston regarding his conduct during proceedings of the Committee for the Executive Office during which Ms Bradshaw was in the Chair. Attached to the report are the report of the investigation of the independent Commissioner for Standards at the time, Dr Melissa McCullough, various written submissions from Mr Gaston and a copy of the statement that he made during his oral hearing with the Committee. Before summarising the outcome of the complaint, I emphasise, at the outset, that it would have been easy for the Committee to have gone down a rabbit hole in the case and become distracted with issues relating to the wider business of the Committee for the Executive Office. Instead, on commencing its work, the Committee was clear that its focus would be on considering the facts of the case in relation to the points to prove within the applicable rules of conduct that were alleged to have been breached. Ultimately, that is what the Committee's decision-making was based upon, as explained in its report. I encourage Members to maintain the same focus during their contributions to the debate. I should also point out that the evidence in relation to the points to prove for each rule is not in dispute; it is direct evidence in the form of official video footage of the applicable TEO Committee proceedings. On commencing their adjudication of the case, the members of the Committee viewed the video footage for themselves. I will outline the Committee's consideration and conclusions on each of the alleged breaches of the code. Allegation 1 is that Mr Gaston breached rule 15 of the code, which states:

"You shall not subject anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack."

The conduct in question was Mr Gaston's directive to Ms Bradshaw to:

"Take a step back. You're okay, you're okay. Breathe".

The Committee noted, in particular, the commissioner's conclusions that that comment was "unreasonable and excessive" as it, first:

"served to undermine" —

Ms Bradshaw's authority as TEO Committee Chairperson —

"by implying that she was emotionally unbalanced or incapable of managing the proceedings—thereby casting doubt on her competence";

secondly —

"can reasonably be perceived as dismissive or invalidating";

and, thirdly —

"can reasonably be regarded as a gratuitous personal insult".

Having assessed the evidence and the facts, the Committee agreed with the commissioner's conclusions that Mr Gaston's "Breathe" comment was an unreasonable and excessive personal attack on Ms Bradshaw that was in breach of rule 15. It was clear to the Committee that the comment, including the context in which it was made, was:

"'unreasonable' in terms of being 'beyond the limits of acceptability'; 'excessive' in being 'more than is necessary, normal, or desirable'; and a 'personal attack' as it amounted to an abusive remark or severe criticism directed at an individual (i.e. Ms Bradshaw)."

The Committee also concurred with the commissioner's conclusion that Mr Gaston's comment amounted to a "gratuitous personal" comment rather than political speech and that the finding of a breach was justified for the protection of the rights and reputation of Ms Bradshaw. Allegation 2 is that Mr Gaston breached rule 13 of the code, which states:

"You shall not act in any way which improperly interferes, or is intended or is likely to improperly interfere, with the performance by the Assembly of its functions, or the performance by a Member, officer or staff of the Assembly of their duties."

The Committee examined whether Mr Gaston's conduct or behaviour improperly interfered with, or was likely to improperly interfere with the Executive Office Committee's performance of its functions or the performance by its Chairperson, Ms Bradshaw, of her duties. In particular, the Committee was clear from the evidence and its legal advice that Mr Gaston asked nine questions that did not pertain to the work —.

No, I will not. You will have your opportunity; you will have your 10 minutes. Those questions did not pertain to the work of the Executive Office Committee and were clearly political and irrelevant. The Standards and Privilege's Committee was clear that Mr Gaston persisted, despite repeated requests from the Chairperson and advice by officials to stay on topic. It was also clear that Ms Bradshaw intervened in order to uphold the rules and to ensure the proper functioning of the Executive Office Committee. After weighing up the various considerations, the Committee concluded that the "persistent, repetitive and excessive" nature of Mr Gaston's conduct meant that he crossed the threshold by acting in a way that improperly interfered, or was likely to improperly interfere, with the performance by the Executive Office Committee of its functions, and the performance by Ms Bradshaw of her duties as Chairperson. Following careful assessment, the Committee upheld allegation 2 and concurred with the commissioner's finding that Mr Gaston breached rule 13. The Committee agreed with the commissioner's view that Mr Gaston's comments would not qualify for the protection afforded to freedom of speech under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I should point out that that finding means that Mr Gaston is the first Member to have breached rule 13. In addition, the Committee agreed that Mr Gaston's conduct was inconsistent with various principles of conduct. I will now turn briefly to the commissioner's finding that Mr Gaston also breached rule 10 on the basis that he failed to observe or comply with "policy, guidance or instructions" issued by the Assembly Commission, namely the behaviour code. The Assembly Commission's behaviour code

"sets out clear expectations that all individuals working within Parliament Buildings should act professionally and uphold the highest standards of integrity, courtesy, and mutual respect…".

In addition, the Executive Office Committee's own protocols emphasise the importance of courtesy and respect for each other, as well as for the authority of the Chairperson. From its review of the evidence, the Committee was clear that Mr Gaston's unprofessional behaviour and discourtesy was particularly pronounced and that the finding of a breach of rule 10 was also justified. That said, the Committee did not factor that breach into its considerations in relation to its recommended sanction. That is because, as part of a wider package of recommended improvements to the MLA code, the Committee will be proposing to the Assembly that the behaviour code become a principle of conduct rather than a rule of conduct. Under the Committee's upcoming proposals, the recently agreed unacceptable behaviours policy will, instead, be the enforceable rule for that type of misconduct. I shall now explain the Committee's reasoning in relation to the recommended sanction in deciding on a proportionate, appropriate and justified sanction to recommend to the Assembly. The Committee had regard to all the circumstances of the case, including, first, that Mr Gaston's conduct took place in a public Committee session and therefore his statements could reach a wide audience and have reputational consequences for Ms Bradshaw; secondly, the particular nature of the breaches of rules 15 and 13; and, thirdly, the fact that Mr Gaston had not accepted that he had breached the code. The Committee also had regard to its legal advice on the matter, the range of sanctions available and the sanctions recommended in similar precedent cases. If the motion is approved, it will mark only the second occasion to date when the Assembly has excluded a Member from proceedings, the first being Dr Steve Aiken in 2024, when he breached rule 12 through the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information and rule 16 by failing to cooperate at all times with the commissioner's investigation. Whilst every case must be decided on its merits, with a view to maintaining a fair and consistent approach across breach cases, the Committee therefore recommends a comparable sanction in Mr Gaston's case. The Committee reached its decisions on this case on a unanimous basis. As is appropriate with conduct cases, the Committee members left party politics aside and made their decisions objectively on the evidence and facts before them. I hope that that approach continues in this plenary debate. Finally, the Committee is clear that the recommended sanction of excluding Mr Gaston from Assembly proceedings for a period of two sitting days is appropriate and proportionate. I commend the motion to the House.

1,479 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:22 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.

Challenge this classification