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

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Jon Burrows

Party at the time

Ulster 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 5356816

Read the official Assembly record

Text

With so many pressing issues in our society, I wonder what the public will think as they watch us spending so much time and energy dealing with a matter that happened so long ago. I will cut to the chase, because Mr Gaston has, I think, accepted that his conduct was suboptimal and not becoming of a Member. I will focus on the issue of disproportionality, because that is the nub of the matter. I used to run a disciplinary regime, and there are clear objective factors that can be applied to determine whether conduct is disproportionate or proportionate. The first is the seriousness of the issue that was being discussed. It was a serious issue, as Mr Buckley pointed out. It concerned issues of safeguarding right at the heart of our democracy. The second factor — the commissioner referenced it — is that this happened early in Mr Gaston's career in the Assembly. There has been no repetition of the conduct, so that is a mitigating factor when we look at the appropriateness of the sanction. The third factor is that there was a prompt apology. Again, that is something that is recognised across disciplinary regimes for all regulated professions as a mitigating factor.

Yes, I will give way.

No, it was given in private, but I think that it was repeated afterwards. There was a prompt apology; in fact, the apology's being prompt is about the only prompt thing in the whole incident, which has cost a lot of money and time. There is also the much-established principle of proportionality running through all of this, which is that you are supposed to choose the least punitive sanction that achieves the purpose of imposing any sanction. The Committee has jumped to one of the most serious sanctions without fully demonstrating why the other sanctions were deemed to be inappropriate. The fact that there has not been a repetition of the behaviour would suggest that, even if we believed that the conduct had been proven, the least serious sanction would be to note that there had been bad behaviour, not to exclude someone for two days. Members on the other side of the House often talk about human rights and equality. Article 10, which is about freedom of expression, gives the most substantial protection to — guess what? — political speech. The jurisprudence is so clear that, particularly if a Member of a legislative Assembly is talking about something of public interest, it has to be the most egregious breach to justify a sanction, let alone removing a Member for two days from representing — whom? — his constituents in North Antrim. The other point to make is that looking at this as someone with an insight into professional misconduct, I wonder why a bonus breach was found, which was of rule 10. In many ways, that is what is called "double counting". There is nothing fresh in the breach of rule 10 that does not apply to rules 15 and 13. It is just an additional, made-up bonus breach. We have to see that in the significant context that proportionality, when it comes to fundamental rights — this is about the fundamental right of freedom of expression — includes necessity. Anyone who believes in human rights — we often get lectured on them by those on the other side of the House — would have to be convinced that the sanction is necessary and that nothing else can address the Member's conduct other than to exclude him for two days, when other sanctions are clearly available.

There is a context here. Many people will know that this is a place in which a Member said, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", hours after babies were mutilated, women were raped and people were taken hostage and killed. That was found not to be a breach.

That was the man who said it. No wonder he thinks that it is not relevant to people out there. People will wonder what we are doing in this place today, wasting time and wasting money when someone could have said, "You know what? Don't act like that again. If you do, it will be dealt with more seriously". For all those reasons — that it is disproportionate, punitive and unnecessary — we will be voting against the sanction.

723 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