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

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance 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 5356792

Read the official Assembly record

Text

First, I thank the former, independent Commissioner for Standards, Dr Melissa McCullough, the Committee and all others involved in the response to the complaint. What we have is an independent, considered and expert-led outcome. I remind others that the content of the report is the only basis for today's debate. Whilst others have sought to distort and distract the narrative in and outside the Chamber, that is the issue before us today. A summary of the allegations in the complaint is that the Member concerned repeatedly failed to follow the Chair's directions, disregarded the rules regarding the remit of the Committee and made inaccurate public statements about the Chair. The independent investigation found that the Member's comment to the Chair to "breathe" constituted an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack" under rule 15. However, contrary to media commentary, notably delivered ahead of the embargo this morning, that was only one part of a deliberate ploy to undermine the Chair's integrity. The report notes that the comment was both "unreasonable" and "excessive" and can be "perceived as dismissive or invalidating", as well as "condescending and patronising". I want to be clear: there have been attempts to diminish that element — we have just heard it — as the rough and tumble of politics. There is a clear difference. That was not in the robust debate of issues. Given that the report identifies the broader cultural issue in which a woman's arguments are trivialised by framing them as emotional outbursts, perhaps it is about time that we all in the Chamber recognise those micro-aggressions for what they are.

I have a lot to get through. I will come back to you.

I have a lot to get through. I will come back to you as well, if I have time. Most damning, in my view, is that the comment in question was used as "mechanisms to silence". There are many people in the Chamber, notably women, who have experienced that. The independent report further found that the Member repeatedly failed to respect the authority of the Chair and engaged in:

"improper interference with the Assembly Committees' functions"

under rule 13. Therefore, the Member's conduct was found independently to have breached two rules identified in the complaint. Notably, the commissioner even found that a further rule — rule 10 — had also been engaged and breached. It was noted that, at one meeting, the Member asked nine questions outside the remit of the Committee, despite attempts —

I am trying to get through this. Apologies. You will have your 10 minutes. — by the Chair to guide him back to the scope of the work. Here lies perhaps the most important point of all. The report notes:

"the Chair was fully justified—and indeed obliged—to intervene in order to uphold the rules and ensure the proper functioning of the Committee".

That represents a complete independent vindication of the Chair's actions, as well as raising a serious issue about the conduct of the Member. The report continues that the Member chose not to recognise that the Chair was upholding established norms and protocols of scrutiny and thus impeded Committee business. That conduct was "persistent" and "repetitive", contributing to a public perception of disorder. When we hear that the Committee looked as though it had got into a fray, that is why. Let us be clear: contrary to much of the commentary before the media embargo, the issue goes well beyond a single remark to a pattern of behaviour designed, frankly, to bully a Committee Chair. It is totally in order to engage —.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is totally in order to challenge public policy — that is our job — in a fair and courteous manner, but it is not in order to engage in excessive personal attacks and improper interference with the workings of the institutions and to undermine a fellow Member's integrity intentionally. If we enable conduct that is designed to attack people excessively, interfere with proceedings and undermine one another's integrity, we will find ourselves with a weakened democratic process in which fewer people, particularly women, will be willing to take part. We should all reflect on that. Finally, we can see that, of course, the standard deflection process has begun. I hope, however, that we can focus on the issues that are before us today. Let us be clear that only one Member of the House has been found to be in breach of a number of rules in our code of conduct. To agree that we can involve ourselves in robust challenge without the desire to derail business and certainly without the toxicity and the personalising is fundamentally what this is all about.

786 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