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

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043729

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I have noted the many issues raised by Members, and I will endeavour to respond to as many as possible in my closing comments on the debate. I absolutely accept that not laying a legislative consent motion for the Data (Use and Access) Bill is not a situation in which we should have found ourselves. The Bill was a complex matter and created a need to seek clarity on the Bill's implications for the post-Brexit Windsor framework and assess the views offered on the proposed legislation by the Human Rights Commission. The British Government's reluctance to share their complete article 2(1) Windsor framework assessment of the Bill in a timely manner was a significant contributing factor to the delays in progressing an LCM. I have written to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to highlight the fact that it is a fundamental obligation of the Government to ensure that there is early and proper engagement, in particular around devolution analysis and any relevant article 2(1) Windsor framework assessments, to ensure that the experience of Data (Use and Access) Bill is not repeated.

I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I will certainly supply you with that information. It is clear that officials should have engaged with the Committee for Finance sooner on the matter, and the House should have been afforded the opportunity to fully consider the devolved provisions of the Bill. My permanent secretary has taken steps to ensure that such circumstances are not repeated, and, as has been noted, the permanent secretary and the deputy permanent secretary responsible for the matter appeared before the Committee and hopefully reassured it, as best they could, that lessons had been learnt from this. If I were sitting on the Benches where Members are sitting, I would also be less than amused that we are in the situation that we are. I fully accept that, and lessons have to be learned from this. I have had engagement with my permanent secretary about it to ensure that we do not end up in this position again. The Chair of the Committee referred to radio silence from the Department to the Committee. There should never be radio silence from the Department to the Committee, but it is a two-way radio. The Committee, through the diligence of the Clerk, it has to be said, made the Committee aware of the legislation coming through, and there was some engagement initially. Then there was radio silence. However, let us make sure that the radio is working both ways and that there is communication flowing both ways: from the Department to the Committee and from the Committee to the Department. Primary responsibility rests with the Department — I fully accept that — but let us all learn lessons from the process. As to some of the commentary around the Act itself, I have outlined the three areas where devolved matters are covered: smart data, the National Underground Assets Register and a requirement for updating the Digital Economy Act 2017. The Act covers a lot more, but it is not the responsibility of the Assembly. We would not have been asked in the LCM for our views on those broader matters. They are outside the remit of the Assembly. Members may have varying views on pieces of the legislation such as Mr Carroll referred to.

Just one second. Members may have views on parts of the legislation other than the provisions on smart data, the Digital Economy Act and the National Underground Asset Register, but those are the Assembly's three areas of competence. Go ahead.

Again, tracts of the Act fall outside the Executive's remit. Under the Act, the Secretary of State or the Treasury is empowered to establish smart data schemes through regulations. The implementation of smart data schemes, however, touches on consumer protection, economic regulation and digital services, which are areas that fall within the Assembly's competence. The Act's application must therefore reflect our local regulations. Any smart data scheme that is introduced here must align with our consumer priorities, economic strategies and digital inclusions. I ask the Member to put his questions on the broader issue of workers' rights to the Minister for the Economy.

I will conclude my comments. As I said, the Act covers a wide range of issues. Three areas fall under devolved competence and are therefore our responsibility, and we would have been asked for legislative consent to introduce them. The broader issues are outside my control and the Executive's control, but I reassure the Assembly and the Committee for Finance that lessons have been learnt. This situation should never have arisen in the first place, and the permanent secretary and I have put in place measures to ensure that it does not happen in the future.

Further to that point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, the Member is speaking in a personal capacity. He knows fine well that I was in no way impugning the reputation of his Clerk or members of the Committee. I was pointing out an obvious fact, which is that radios work in both directions.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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