Debate contribution: The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5043701
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Members might think that the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 LCM is in some way a minor piece of legislation that is going through. They might consider it to be like most LCMs that we look at in that it will have no real impact or import on us. Anybody who looks quite closely at the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 will realise otherwise, however. The Act talks about smart data, digital identity products and research provisions. It also talks about "legitimate interests", which is about defining how GDPR will work against potential schemes in the EU and the rest of world. The Act talks about the introduction of "automated decision-making" systems that are attached to AI; international transfers of data; the continuation of data; and the ability to use encrypted and unencrypted data that might pass back and forth across digital boundaries. It further talks about health and social care information, the importance of its encryption, its movement and spread and how it is utilised. It also talks about privacy and electronic communications regulations (PECR) changes. Some people might not understand those, but, basically, those changes bring such fines up to the levels of those that are issued for potential GDPR breaches. That means that companies or people who fall foul of those rules and regulations could find themselves being fined up to half the value of their company or even more. The Act also talks about AI and copyright. Thank you very much indeed, David, for bringing that up, because AI and copyright is a significant issue. Indeed, the House of Lords was very concerned about that, and it still is. Together, all those issues should have shown that there should have been suitable scrutiny in the Northern Ireland Assembly. When did our officials first know about the legislative consent memorandum, and when did it arrive in our system to be looked at? It arrived in October last year. Those of us who are members of the Finance Committee can be quite rightly concerned about the fact that we were not informed of the process all the way through until May this year. However, if you look at correspondence between the Department and the Executive and other correspondence and communication that was going back and forth across the Irish Sea — obviously using unencrypted data at some speed to be able to do that — you will see that lots of questions were being asked. Lots of questions were being asked about article 2(1) of the Windsor framework and the adequacy of that, and that went back and forth. All of that was going on for three and a half to four months. At what stage were we as a Committee informed of that? We were not, but it was open knowledge in the Department in dealing with the Executive and in Departments in London. We had not been informed about it. Minister, one of the things that I want you to address is that, at some stage, there must have been a checklist of LCMs that your Department was dealing with. We were quite pleased that Neil Gibson came before the Committee. Of all the senior civil servants whom I have ever encountered at Committee, Neil is probably the most honest and open one, and he took full responsibility and accountability for what went wrong. However, the reality is that he should not have been the one doing that, because the situation should never have happened. Minister, we need to work out why, in the LCM process, you were not informed; or, if you were informed, at what stage did somebody say, "This process isn't working"? You have already heard what the Speaker has said and has told Ministers, the Executive and the rest. The amount of information that is supposed to be coming before us is not adequate, and the way that the House is kept informed is not adequate. There are other issues with this that, I think, are quite disquieting. There are supposed to be various checks, balances and controls in a devolved Assembly. We have seen three of them fail with remarkable rapidity here. The first one concerns applicability motions. An applicability motion was brought about when the Windsor framework came before the House. We voted against it, and that was promptly ignored by the Secretary of State. The Stormont brake is another mechanism that was supposedly designed to act as some form of democratic accountability and scrutiny. Again, the Secretary of State swiftly ignored that. The LCM process is supposed to be part of the devolution process, and we have seen the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament deal with those issues in ample time. However, we have not, because we had not been informed. It is very easy to blame perfidious Albion — most times we do — but the fact that it has been sitting in our in tray since October makes it a bit difficult for us to start to complain about everybody else because we are not able to do this. I cannot see how, in good conscience, in any way, our party will be able to support the motion tonight. There is absolutely no way. When people talk about this being a disastrous failure of the process, what is the point of having democratic accountability, scrutiny or anything if we do not even get the basics right in the first place? I could go on, but it has been quite a long day and rather tedious. That will not change what I have to say. This has been an absolute disaster, and somebody, somehow, needs to grasp it and make sure that it does not happen again.
951 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.12 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.85).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.29 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.61 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.