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

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

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 5356766

Read the official Assembly record

Text

At the outset, I say that today's debate is a complete and utter waste of time for the Assembly. An hour and a half in which we could be discussing health, education or roads is being spent adjudicating on a spat between two Members — a breakdown in the relationship between Members from two different political parties. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees. What was the context for the Committee meeting in question? It has not been talked about at all by the Committee Chair. Michael McMonagle, a former Sinn Féin press officer, who worked for the party in media roles and at Stormont, had been charged with and later pleaded guilty to a series of child sexual offences, including an attempt to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and sexual communication with children. Those offences happened between 2020 and 2021. He was later sent to prison. The reason for the First Minister being brought to the scrutiny Committee was the outrage from Members across the House that, potentially, the First Minister had misled the House and misled the scrutiny Committee when she claimed that she had no knowledge of McMonagle's whereabouts and had had no contact with him since his arrest.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, here we have it. We are not even allowed to debate the context of the report. Members, you are not judge, jury and executioner. Every Member, regardless of their party, has an electoral mandate to be in this place and to speak for the people whom they represent. We may not like the words that they use or the positions that they take, but they are entitled to put those points across. As I was saying before the points of order, that was despite the First Minister being photographed several feet from Mr McMonagle in this very building. The second point — the matter is on the record — is that, potentially, the First Minister had misled the Committee as to when she learned that her party staff had provided two references. That is the context. Why was that before the TEO Committee? Because it has a responsibility for safeguarding. That is an issue that should matter to every Member in the Assembly. However, as usual, today we are told, "Say nothing. See nothing". It will not wash that the relationship between Mr Gaston and the Committee Chair, Ms Bradshaw, has evidently fallen down. It is clear for anybody who watched the Committee that it was absolutely shambolic.

I will not. I have already given way, so I will not get an extra minute. We have not seen a case like this before. The scrutiny of the Committee was absolutely disastrous. It was a stain on the scrutiny ability of the Assembly that there was a serious issue of safeguarding; a Minister — in this case, the First Minister — was brought before the Committee; and the Committee descended into a free-for-all. What led to that is key. There was a pre-meeting of the Committee Chair and the witness, with no prior knowledge of the Committee members. I think that it took place 10 minutes before the meeting commenced. That was shambolic. That was a disaster in respect of chairing ability. It was a low point for the scrutiny of the Assembly, and it is something that all Members should reflect on when it comes to training and conducting scrutiny in Committees. Legal advice was then given. Was that legal advice provided to the First Minister beforehand? All those questions, in the context of that Committee, were important to the Committee's deliberations. There needs to be an element of flexibility when scrutinising as serious an issue as a failure of safeguarding in this place. With respect to rule 13, which talks about improper interference with the performance of the Assembly's functions, and Mr Gaston asking questions outside the Committee remit, what about the very first question from the Chair, Ms Bradshaw? She asked for clarification of whether recent media commentary that suggested that the IRA army council influences Sinn Féin's priorities was relevant to the work of the Executive Office. I think that it is a fair question, but it is not in the remit of the Executive Committee. There was no complaint from the members. We then look at Mr Gaston's comment in relation to rule 15. Does the comment:

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

constitute an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack"? Mr Gaston himself has said that it was ill judged, and he has apologised. Do I count that as an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack"? No, I do not; in fact, in the House, Ms Bradshaw is on record calling Members liars. She is on record telling a Member to:

"Grow up." — [Official Report (Hansard), 13 October 2025, p5, col 1].

when he expressed his personal experiences in relation to a threat on his life. Is that the same Ms Bradshaw who has taken so much issue with the term "breathe"? I argue that it is not. For those reasons and given that it is a curtailment of political free speech, the Democratic Unionist Party will vote against the motion today.

871 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