Debate contribution: The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043693

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is with disappointment that I rise to speak to a take-note motion instead of having the opportunity to scrutinise, debate or vote on whether the Assembly gives its consent to a legislative consent motion. That situation is due to the Finance Minister and his Department failing to follow the process in place. We regret that article 2 of the Windsor framework and, specifically, concerns raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have been allowed to hijack arrangements for the Assembly to give its consent to the devolved provisions of this legislation, which means that Parliament is legislating without consent.

That once more demonstrates both the negative impact that the imposition of those arrangements is having on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and the appetite of some parties for placing in jeopardy the prudent progression of legislation that will benefit communities in Northern Ireland in order to assuage the concerns of another jurisdiction.

The Bill aims to enhance the framework in which data can be shared to improve public service delivery. Advancing work on a National Underground Asset Register will help to make planned works better informed and more efficient and will prevent unnecessary disturbance of underground apparatus with all the additional cost and delay that that brings. To our mind, those are worthwhile aims that Northern Ireland should be party to. Data in the current age brings a lot of questions, and we should have been afforded the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the provisions here. I emphasise the dates. The Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament on 23 October 2024. The Scottish Government laid their LCM on 22 November 2024, and the Scottish Parliament gave its consent on 1 April 2025. The Welsh Government laid their LCM on 2 January 2025, and the Senedd gave consent on 6 May 2025. However, in Northern Ireland, we saw the LCM and draft motion on 28 May 2025, in somewhat chaotic conditions and by urgent procedures and beyond the time frames for affording the Committee its place. Therefore, consent was not given. I note that, when officials came to the Finance Committee to explain what had happened, they said that they had been engaging with the Human Rights Commission and UK Government officials for some three months, but never in that time did they consider laying the information before the Assembly or communicating any of it to the Finance Committee. That is poor. The Finance Minister and his Department need to reflect on and explain why they prioritised communications with the commission rather than with the Assembly and its Committees. There ultimately needs to be a review of how Departments process requests for legislative consent in order to avoid a repeat of the failure to table a motion in a timely fashion on this occasion. Moreover, the Minister should provide explicit assurances that the flaws in the process will not prevent Northern Ireland from benefiting from the provisions in the Bill. Finally, it is also notable that there was debate in Westminster about whether more than two genders should be permitted when someone creates digital accounts or a digital identity. Obviously, we believe that that should be based on biological sex, but we ask the Minister to clarify his and his party's position on that. Today's take-note motion is regrettable, and lessons must be learned.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

Most of the contribution is a procedural complaint that the Department missed the timetable for a legislative consent motion, set out against the Scottish and Welsh dates, with practical requests for a review and for assurances that Northern Ireland will still benefit. The criticism of the Windsor Framework and the Human Rights Commission ("hijack", "assuage the concerns of another jurisdiction") is a constitutional and political argument about process, not an attack on a community. The closing line on digital identity, "based on biological sex", and the request that the Minister state "his and his party's position", touches a recognised gender-identity flashpoint and reads as a tacked-on point. It is brief and secondary to the main thrust.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main function is scrutiny of how a Department handled legislative consent and whether the Assembly was denied its role, which serves the general public interest. The final question on gender options looks designed to put an opponent's stance on a contested identity issue on the record, and that adds a divisive note. However, it is a single sentence attached to a substantive procedural contribution, so it does not define the record.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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