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 5356928

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Before I make my remarks on the debate, I will point out some worrying commentary. I take my role on the Committee on Standards and Privileges very seriously, as do its other members. Party politics are left at the door, as they should be. Integrity and impartiality are key to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Some of the language in the debate concerns me. Mr Brett's use of "we" is really concerning. To close the debate, I highlight the importance of the House's holding its Members to account when that is warranted. The investigatory role of the Commissioner for Standards provides an independent dimension to the Assembly's standards regime. However, the Committee's adjudication role and the Assembly's sanctioning role in plenary sittings involve self-regulation. Therefore, those elements in particular need to be robust in order to maintain and enhance public confidence in the political system. As I pointed out when I opened the debate, in adjudicating on the case, the Committee maintained a clinical focus on the essential facts or elements that were required to find a breach of the rules cited in the complaint case. That was done to ensure that the Committee did not get distracted by irrelevant or subjective contextual issues. I will sum up the case before us. The Committee unanimously concurred with the findings of the then commissioner, Dr Melissa McCullough.

No, I have a lot to get through in my winding-up speech. The Committee concurred that Mr Gaston breached three rules of conduct and failed to observe several principles of conduct. Whilst it is regrettable that the sanction is necessary, the Assembly's approval of the motion will demonstrate that Members will be held accountable for misconduct. I turn to Members' contributions to the debate. I wish to pick up on the issues that Mr Gaston raised, including those raised in correspondence to the Committee Clerk, which was received last Monday and provided to the Committee. First, Mr Gaston referred to the Committee proceedings relating to the complaint. Some Committee members declared interests in relation to the case, while others declared interests and stood aside or recused themselves from Committee proceedings that related to the case. Secondly, Mr Gaston referred to information, which he sought under the Freedom of Information Act, relating to the meeting between the Chairperson of the Executive Office Committee and the First Minister on 23 October 2024. On the first issue, Mr Gaston will be well aware that, if he has a complaint that alleges that any Committee member failed to declare an interest or address a conflict of interest, it is open to him to make his complaint to the commissioner. As Committee Chairperson, I am assured that the Committee has taken all necessary legal and procedural advice and been scrupulous in this case and all cases that it has dealt with to date in ensuring procedural fairness during the adjudication process. I am also satisfied that Committee members have been diligent and professional in fulfilling their unique role, including by acting fairly and objectively. There may be some confusion on the part of the Member about the requirements for Committee members to declare interests when it comes to considering whether to stand aside from proceedings, so let me explain. The requirement for members to declare relevant interests, as contained in rule 5 of the code of conduct, relates to relevant interests:

"which might reasonably be thought by others to influence your approach to the matter under consideration".

As I explained, the matters under consideration by the Committee were the points to prove that related to rules 15, 13 and 10. The Committee's consideration did not include other, irrelevant matters that related to the business of the Executive Office Committee. We should be clear that it is uncommon for members to stand aside in Committee proceedings in light of the broad principle that elected representatives cannot readily be disenfranchised. Also, a member's having an interest in a matter and declaring that interest does not necessarily create a conflict of interest that prevents them from engaging in consideration of the matter in question. That said, Committee members are reminded that, in some instances, they may consider that they need to recuse themselves from certain items of business if they have an interest that is such that it could reasonably be perceived to create a conflict of interest because of a real possibility of bias when considering a matter. It is ultimately for each member to consider and determine that, having regard to their specific circumstances. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that each Committee member who declared an interest and stood aside or declared an interest and decided not to stand aside explained their reasoning to the Committee. On Mr Gaston's second issue, the Committee noted his earlier correspondence about his freedom of information request when it deliberated on the complaint. As I explained, the Committee needed to keep focused on the elements required to find a breach of the rules in question. Other points raised by Mr Gaston have been addressed in the Committee's report, which was informed by legal advice, including what he described as an "inconsistent" and contradictory approach regarding the decision that his complaint against Ms Bradshaw was inadmissible, and his points about the previous case involving Dr Aiken. I will respond to a number of comments that have been raised during the debate. First, on Mr Buckley's comment on freedom of speech, the Committee is well aware of the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of expression, particularly for elected representatives. The MLA code of conduct upholds that right. However, the Committee is well versed in applying the legal test to the factual circumstances of each case when deciding whether interference with that right is justified. In this case, it did so in relation to the alleged breach and when considering a recommended sanction, and it was supported by legal advice at every step of the way. I will address Mr Givan's points about opening up the procedure to vexatious complaints. Mr Givan will know, because he was previously Chair of the Committee, that safeguards exist in the admissibility criteria for complaints that are vexatious or deemed to be inadmissible by the commissioner. I will pick up on Eóin Tennyson's point and reiterate that former commissioner, Dr McCullough, was an officer of the Assembly for five years, and she executed her duties with impartiality and professionalism. Her investigation of the case was thorough and objective. Moreover, to attack the office of the commissioner or the Committee is to undermine the integrity of the Assembly's standards system. Members who have been found to have breached the code may naturally feel sore, but they should be able to accept the verdict of both an independent commissioner and a dedicated Committee of their peers. I reiterate the Committee's conclusions that the case highlights how vital it is for all Members to respect the authority of the Chairpersons of the Assembly's Committees and to uphold the rules and protocols that ensure the proper functioning of the Assembly's Committees. In opening the debate, I explained that the Committee had regard for all the circumstances of the case, as well as the legal advice, when it decided on the recommended sanction, which it considers to be proportionate, appropriate and justified. Today's motion should be a reminder that the Committee takes its role extremely seriously, and it will not hesitate to recommend a suitable sanction when it feels that it is warranted and necessary for breaches of the Assembly's code of conduct. I ask Members to support the motion.

1,268 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