Debate contribution: Digital ID Scheme: Opposition

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 11 November 2025.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

11 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Digital ID Scheme: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5349543

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion for debate. As I said to a previous contributor, I raised the issue as a Matter of the Day in the Chamber when the UK Government first announced it, and I have not seen any evidence since that dissuades me from thinking that it is the wrong approach. The proposal will try to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of widespread identity fraud or any system failure that would justify something so intrusive, expensive and complex. It feels less like a genuine solution and more like a political exercise. Meanwhile, people here are dealing with far more pressing issues, such as the cost-of-living crisis, access to healthcare and pressures on our public services. Against that reality, spending millions of pounds on a national digital ID scheme seems, at best, misguided. Beyond the politics, there are real concerns about fairness and accessibility. Not everyone has a smartphone or feels confident with technology. For older people, those on lower incomes and those without digital access, the scheme could become another barrier — another way of their being excluded from services that belong to us all. There is also the issue of trust, which is the most fundamental of all and something that the Alliance Party cares deeply about. Placing everyone's personal data into a single, centralised system is a huge risk. Who controls that data? Who uses it? How secure is it? Governments around the world have learned the hard way that even the most advanced systems can fail. In India, the digital ID scheme has seen repeated breaches. Databases have been exposed online, and personal information has been sold illegally. In Estonia, which is often held up as the model of digital government, a flaw in the national ID cards' encryption left citizens' data vulnerable and forced a national recall. Singapore's Singpass system has seen thousands of compromised accounts appear on the Dark Web. In Ukraine, the platform that digitised identity and public services has been repeatedly targeted during the war, proving that centralised data systems can become key targets in times of crisis. Therefore, when UK Government Ministers tell us that the technology is safe, we have every reason to be sceptical. No system up to now has proven that it is unhackable, and, once trust in government data handling is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild. For Northern Ireland, the concerns are amplified. Our constitutional and social landscape is complex and sensitive. People here have the right to identify as British, Irish or both. That is part of the Good Friday Agreement, and it matters deeply to us all. Any digital identity scheme must represent that pluralism, not undermine it. A one-size-fits-all digital identity scheme from Westminster risks cutting across the delicate balance that has helped to sustain peace and stability here. Then, there is the simple, practical reality of life on this island where thousands of people cross the border every day for work, study and family reasons. A UK-wide system that ignores that fluidity risks creating confusion and potentially unnecessary bureaucracy. Once again, Northern Ireland seems to have been treated as an afterthought. I share the intention behind the motion, but I think that we need to go further. The issue is not whether Northern Ireland should be exempted from the proposed scheme; it is that the scheme itself is fundamentally flawed. It is unnecessary, unworkable and unlikely to deliver the security and efficiency that it promises. Ultimately, the debate is not about technology but about rights, privacy and respect. People deserve to know how their personal information will be used, that their identity will not become political property and that their privacy will not be treated as expendable. For those reasons, I will support the motion and the DUP amendment. The amendment recognises that the scheme cannot simply be tweaked or improved and therefore needs to be binned entirely.

We feel that the amendment acknowledges the broader risks not just to Northern Ireland, given our unique circumstances, but to personal privacy and public trust across the UK. This is not about constitutional identity, nor is it about party politics. Rather, it is about practicality, proportionality and protecting everyone's rights.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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