Debate contribution: Casement Park: Non-GAA Events

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 17 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

17 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Casement Park: Non-GAA Events

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5394662

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Due to the lack of Members willing to give way, I hope to take every second, if required. From the get-go, I assure the House that, yes, I am still opposed to Casement and am unashamedly opposed to the GAA, for the grounds that it has named after terrorists, for the atrocities that have been carried out and for the trophies that have been named after them. Those are linked to the GAA to this day.

I challenge the GAA to sort out its own backyard and the image that it portrays to unionism.

The debate has been a first for me. Principal Deputy Speaker, you made a point of order to Mr Carroll. I have not been a Member for that long, but nowhere in Standing Orders does it say that a Speaker, when presiding over a debate, can raise a point of order with a Member. You can absolutely challenge a Member, but raising a point of order with a Member does not reflect proper debate in the Chamber.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy —.

Yes, I am happy to give way.

I will leave that between the Principal Deputy Speaker and —.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. To start off —.

I will, reluctantly.

I encourage the Member to refer that to the Speaker. As I was saying, Principal Deputy Speaker, to start my summing up —.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. To start off my summing up proper, I put on record my thanks to the Research and Information Service (RaISe) for the paper that it produced. It did the homework of Members. It is clear that nationalist Members did not bother reading my motion or the RaISe paper. The paper demonstrates quite well that there is a precedent in the UK. Indeed, it refers to the Scottish model and the Olympic stadium. That shows that Members do not like the messenger, did not read the motion and did not bother reading the information that was provided by RaISe. The paper is an excellent read, and I encourage everybody to take the time to read it. On that basis, I will move forward. There is a stark reality in the House when it comes to debating Casement or any GAA matters. Time after time, nearly every nationalist MLA who gets up to speak in such a debate has to declare an interest as being affiliated with or a member of a local GAA organisation. It is no surprise, then, that they say that they want the GAA to be treated differently from any other organisation. My motion is very clear; it draws a line in the sand to say that money that has been offered out to date has gone. I was not here at that time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I am talking about new money, going forward. I agree with the vast majority of Mr Carroll's amendment. The bit that I have trouble with is the reference to "stadia currently in construction". We need to draw a line in the sand and set an example, so that, going forward, any public money given out by the Executive will be introduced to the clawback for those who generate revenue.

I am happy to give way to Mr Lyons.

I thank the Minister for that clarity. My concern is about the Northern Ireland Football League funding for stadia and the clubs the length and breadth of Northern Ireland, such as Ballymena United, who have participated in all good faith. I do not want a rerun of the renewable heat incentive, where an agreement was put in place, but the Executive rowed back on commitments already made. That is where my problem is with the amendment. I support it in broad terms, absolutely. I have no problem if any money given out to any of the major stadiums from here on in undergoes a clawback mechanism if revenue is generated from them. I will go through a number of the points that have been made. Mr Carroll put both feet into Sinn Féin in some of his remarks, and I enjoyed that, to be honest with you. He outlined how the project has been beset with problems from the get-go. In no particular order, I come to Cathy Mason, who talked about a farce. She asked a simple question. I wanted to give her a simple answer, but she did not want to know. She would not accept an intervention. That was a case of me coming out and publicly saying, in this place, in my motion, that I have no problem, whether it is with football, rugby or GAA: from this point forward, they should face the clawback mechanism. The problem was that the Member did not want me to intervene. It was quite clear. She had a script in front of her, and she would have to throw out the entire script. Time after time, Sinn Féin Members just wanted to line up and attack me for what I think about the GAA. However, this is not about the GAA per se: it is about public money, fairness and the prudent use of public money. I will highlight Andy Allen's contribution. I thought that it was excellent. He talked about the planning challenges that have afflicted the project right from the get-go and about the court decisions. He talked about construction inflation and pointed out that the GAA has committed only £15 million to the project to date, at a time when — we talked about potholes yesterday — there is not the money to put into potholes, and our schools are crumbling and we cannot build new ones. I think of Causeway Academy. We had a meeting yesterday morning, and that school has not even made the list of new schools. Yet the GAA has given a measly commitment of £15 million. Aisling Reilly, I want to come back to you because you talked about double standards. You did not listen to my intervention at all, because you still went on with your pre-scripted nonsense that this was all just about me against the GAA, which could not be further from the truth. This is about public prudence and public money. It is quite clear from your contribution that Casement is the cash cow that will bankroll the future of the GAA. That is not the case for rugby or football. That shows how you believe that the GAA should be treated differently, and, time after time, Member after Member who stood up on the nationalist side showed that the GAA should be treated differently. Mark Durkan talked about regenerating west Belfast. There is no doubt about that: parity of esteem. You went on to talk about scoring points. One thing that I would say to you, Mark, is that when I hit, I put the ball in the net. The GAA likes to put it over the bar and miss the target, whereas every time that I take a shot, I hit my target.

Sinéad Ennis talked about wasted time, so I will skip on over her remarks because I do not want to waste my time responding to her. Pam Cameron brought us back to what the motion is really about: the public finances. She asked a simple question: where is the funding to the public purse? When we are putting in substantial amounts of money, there has to be a return for it. To pick up on Mr Brett's remarks, I can just reassure him — I am sure that he is watching from upstairs — that TUV policy has not changed. We are opposed to Casement Park. However, I am in this House and I know the hand that I have been dealt. I recognise that Mr Brett and others signed up to Casement a long time ago, and I have to work with the hand that I have been dealt. Mr Colm Gildernew talked about a culture war. It is frustrating how nationalism has not listened. Nationalists have not read the motion or listened to anything that has been said, but he did say something that was quite interesting. He talked about a £2·8 billion generation figure and about the social and economic benefits that flow from it. If those are the benefits that come, where is the GAA's fair and equitable proportion to give into it? If it means so much to the GAA — I go on to Mr McNulty talking about "a symbol of hope" and "the beating heart of the GAA" — why not stick your hand in your pocket, get the wallet out and pay your fair share for Casement Park? Time after time, you want the priority to be all things GAA. You want it to be treated differently, and that is something that I do not want. I want all sports to be treated the same. That is why it is fair that I said to draw a line in the sand, and any public money that is awarded from here for any sport in the future should be subject to the clawback mechanism. Do I get an extra minute, since I was interrupted four times?

No. On that basis, I happily move my motion and commend it to the House.

It was four seconds.

1,567 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:51 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.