Debate contribution: Digital ID Scheme: Opposition
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Digital ID Scheme: Opposition
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349554
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The ambition is OK, but it is never going to happen. We will support the motion as amended. The Assembly must send a clear and united message, however, that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. The Government's plan, as outlined in the Westminster research briefing paper 'Digital ID in the UK', claims to offer efficiency and security. We know that history tells us a different story, however. From the abandoned ID card scheme of the early 2000s to costly IT failures across Departments, grand projects too often drained public coffers and delivered little of value, if any at all. At a time that health waiting lists are growing and schools fight for resources, spending millions — the proposer of the motion mentioned a figure of £400 million, but I suggest that it would go way over that, perhaps into the billions — on an untested national ID system is not reform. Rather, it is reckless. The Assembly knows better than most what happens when citizens lose faith in how their data is handled. Northern Ireland's people have lived through decades in which identity was a political currency, particularly for our security forces, where trust, privacy and personal safety were never guaranteed. To many here, the notion that a government database could hold and track their personal information is not reassurance. We need only look at recent data leaks, about which we are all very concerned, in many different fields, such as the recent Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) data leak. I did not mean that as a pun. I reiterate that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. The Ulster Unionist Party has been clear and consistent that the proposal is intrusive, unnecessary and ill-considered. In the House of Lords, Lord Empey rightly said:
"liberty must not be traded for administrative convenience."
Steve Aiken MLA warned that citizens should not be forced to hand over their privacy in the name of digital efficiency. Both are correct. The amendment is welcome, as it strengthens the motion by recognising that such a scheme will jeopardise personal privacy and open the door to the misuse of data, and we know that once that door is opened, it is rarely closed again.
Let us also remember, as has been talked about in the debate already, that not everyone is digitally equipped, or even able, to participate in such a system. Many older people, particularly those who live in rural areas, and those with limited access to broadband could be left behind or excluded from essential services. The digital divide would deepen, and the people who are in need of support would, once again, be those most at risk of being forgotten. If Westminster insists on pressing ahead with this ill-conceived policy, we must be resolute at Westminster and in the Assembly in saying that it is not acceptable. We will not allow another top-down mandate to override local realities, local rights and local voices. Let us therefore make it plain today that we support progress but not at the cost of privacy, that we embrace technology but not at the expense of trust and that we defend security but not at the cost of freedom. At the heart of this lies a simple truth that should guide every Government decision: our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. We will support the motion if it is amended.
578 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: 0.09 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.36 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.20 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
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.