Debate contribution: The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- 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 5043703
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I note all the concerns that have been shared here tonight about this process and the Act. However, all of that does not amount to a hill of beans, because we have already missed the bus on this. In one fell swoop, we have been transformed back into the zombie Assembly zone, and nothing that anyone here, including the Minister, says will make one pin of difference. It is an absolute farce that we are left in the position where we are having a take-note debate on a piece of legislation. How low can this place fall? It is an absolute shambles and disgrace that we as legislators — every Member here today — are left in this position. We are having a take-note debate on a piece of legislation that will affect all our people. I do not care if this is the best piece of legislation that was ever created in Westminster. It is not, but let us say that it was. The fact that we, as legislators in Northern Ireland, were not able to give our consent through an LCM, which is an instrument of Parliament, demonstrates just how big a shambles it was.
Whilst listening to the debate, we have heard concerns from Matthew O'Toole, SDLP; David Honeyford, Alliance; and Steve Aiken, UUP, on aspects of and controversies surrounding the Bill. However, none of us — not one of those Members — can effect change or influence the decision-making process on that legislation now.
My colleague Diane covered some of the positive aspects of the Bill, but we have been told by the Department that the hold-up — the confusion, if you like — was around article 2 of the Windsor framework and, specifically, concerns raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about data protection standards, concerns that have been echoed by most of the parties in the Chamber. An organisation's concerns about a Bill led to the Assembly not being able to debate that Bill's provisions and give it our consent or otherwise. That is how serious it is. We, as an Assembly and an Executive, are left red-faced, having a take-note debate on legislation. It is farcical. The departmental officials fronted up straight away and apologised. The permanent secretary came before the Committee and apologised. We are a scrutiny Committee, and our job is to scrutinise. Every MLA in the Chamber should be scrutinising Bills, but a scrutiny Committee was not afforded the chance or the right to scrutinise legislation that will affect us all. It will affect not only us all, as citizens, but the devolved aspects of the Assembly and Executive. It is shambolic. Yet the Minister comes here to have this take-note debate as if everything is going swimmingly, with a motion stating:
"That this Assembly notes the successful passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025".
What is successful about it? Is it successful because it passed all the legislative stages in Westminster, a place that Sinn Féin does not even sit in? Is that what he is talking about as success? Not one MLA was able to scrutinise the Bill and give their thoughts on it or their consent to it. Sinn Féin: Ourselves Alone? More like "Ourselves Asleep". Not only is Sinn Féin responsible for the mistake —
Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Not only is this matter of the utmost importance to the principles of democracy, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, but it tarnishes the good reputation of the Assembly and Executive. That is how important it is. An LCM is critical: it is a function of Parliament. We, as MLAs, political parties and scrutiny Committees, have not been afforded the right to scrutinise the Bill. The Minister talked about some of the responsibilities falling to the Department for the Economy. As far as I know, the Economy Committee had no sight of the information and saw no detail on the Bill. Therefore, it affects not only the Finance Committee but the Economy Committee, as well as the Department for the Economy, the Department of Finance and the rest of the Executive. It has been a mockery. It is a farce. I hope that the Assembly never again goes through a process whereby we have a take-note debate on legislation. Disgraceful.
718 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: 0.22 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.43 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.20 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.22 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.88 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.