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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Timothy Gaston MLA: Committee on Standards and Privileges Report

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5356855

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I was Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee once upon a time. Having been in the Assembly for 16 years, I have been the subject of many complaints from members of the public and others, which the commissioner investigated and subsequently dismissed. Those included a complaint from witnesses who appeared before the Justice Committee when I was its Chair. I note that Mr Gaston has complained that the commissioner who ruled on this matter did not deem it necessary to carry out an investigation, yet previous commissioners investigated me when I was Chair of the Justice Committee, so there is a question for the Standards and Privileges Committee to address about consistency of approach. As Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I read many a report about the conduct of Members, some of which were never publicised, that, I have to say, made for very interesting reading. The approach taken by the Committee in this report, however, sets a new low that will tie up Committees with spurious allegations and investigations that will come to the Assembly and that we will then have to debate. It sets a precedent that the Assembly should reject. I do not want to get into the tit for tat that took place in the Committee and the way in which that Chair conducts her Committee. I took a very different approach when I was a Committee Chair. I allowed members to speak freely. I allowed them to put forward their views, even when I fundamentally disagreed with those views and the way in which they presented them. I did not see it as my job to stifle members' ability to ask questions that I did not agree with. That has not been the case in that particular Committee. I look at the comments — "Take a step back ... Breathe" — and I hear Sinn Féin saying that they are unacceptable. Those people have actually stopped people breathing and glorified terrorists who killed people, yet they are so offended that somebody had the temerity to tell a Committee Chair to "Breathe". The public will look on with disdain at the way in which Sinn Féin is putting forward its opinion. I look at the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee: the same Member, only last week, accused the Communities Minister of being "sectarian". Is that appropriate language from a Member? I do not expect Gordon Lyons to put in a complaint. In fairness to Sinn Féin members, when I appear before the Education Committee, we have far more robust exchanges, both ways, than the exchange that this complaint is about. The Chair of the Education Committee has facilitated those exchanges. I have never put in a complaint; my officials have never put in a complaint; and, indeed, Sinn Féin members have never put in a complaint. I find that Sinn Féin will usually engage in robust debate without generating complaints. The Alliance Party, though, will happily, in the Chamber, tell a Member who had to move house on multiple occasions under threat to, "Grow up" — and that is acceptable. The Alliance Party will say to the Member beside me, "You're a liar", yet it gets offended and generates a complaint with the Standards and Privileges Committee. The public will look on and make a judgement on the double standards. This is a draconian punishment, because it interferes with the fundamental democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, who elected Timothy Gaston and everybody else in this House. I do not agree with a lot of the different views that Members have, but that is the democratic wish. Timothy Gaston said what he said publicly, and he can be held to account at the next election, as I can for the decisions that I have made and for the way in which I speak. It is not about the subjective opinion of a commissioner or the subjective views of Members. We can all take offence at what other Members say and how they say it.

It is a draconian and disproportionate approach. I give way.

I agree. We in the Assembly could — not that I encourage this — defame any individual in society because we have parliamentary privilege. We could also do it in a Committee because we have parliamentary privilege, yet, even though we have protected privilege as elected Members, we could be subject to an investigation. We have that protection because of the democratic status that we have. Yes, we should be responsible and should exercise that privilege responsibly. We have legal protection, but not towards members of a Committee, and there lies the disconnect between the way in which the commissioner has approached those issues in the Committee and the protected privilege that we have. In my view, an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack" can be the case only where it breaches the law around either harassment or criminal intent. That test has not been passed. It is being voted on because of the subjective opinions of the commissioner and the political views of Members. The commissioner's office has been politically weaponised by those with political grievances, who do not agree with what Mr Gaston said. We are now subject to the derision of democracies internationally for seeking to stifle free speech. Even when we do not like what Members say, we should still protect their right to say it.

904 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification