Debate contribution: Digital ID Scheme: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr Pádraig Delargy on 11 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Pádraig Delargy

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

11 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Digital ID Scheme: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5349626

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I stand here today as an Irish citizen: I always have been, and I always will be. Neither Keir Starmer nor any British Government can take that away from me, change that or impose their BritCard on the people here in the North. The scheme is absurd. It is an insult to our people, and it is an affront to the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement was signed when I was two years old. It promised a better future, and it promised to enshrine my rights as an Irish citizen. The British Government today seek to roll back on that, but, as Irish citizens, it is our right, and no Government in London will ever take that away from us.

I thank Mr Frew for his intervention and for earlier misrepresenting Sinn Féin's position on a number of fronts, which I will go through. My first point is about the fact that you implied that Sinn Féin supports a mandatory ID across the board. That is not true. As I mentioned to you earlier — you chose to ignore Mr Gildernew's speech, Ms Finnegan's speech and my speech — Sinn Féin has consistently opposed the introduction of any mandatory IDs. Our MEPs proudly stood up against mandatory IDs, and we will continue to do so. I am not sure whether you were not able to hear that or chose not to hear it, but please listen and try to understand that point. The reception to the BritCard has been universally negative in the House. That is for various reasons, and Members have emphasised different points, but there is unanimity of purpose on the objective. Paula Bradshaw noted the identity risks in other countries. That is very important. We have to look at examples of good practice, as well as examples of practice that has not been so good but where there are opportunities to learn. This has certainly not been without difficulties in other parts of Europe and, indeed, across the world. The issue of the cost of the scheme has been emphasised across the Chamber, particularly because of this being a time when public services are on their knees. As we have seen, the British Government have continuously cut public services, have taken away the winter fuel payment for pensioners and have been on an austerity agenda that they promised to reverse but continue to impose on ordinary people. The scheme would have been bad at any time, but it is particularly bad at a time when the British Government are challenging and putting pressure on ordinary households across the North and in England, Scotland and Wales. The scheme has practical implications as well. Across the Chamber, we talked about duplication: the scheme duplicates passports, identity cards, driving licences and other forms of ID; it is another layer of bureaucracy. A key point to address is that the people who will be most excluded — the people who will feel the impact of the scheme most acutely — are our older people and those who are locked out of digital access through poverty and other means. As Gerry Carroll mentioned, ethnic minorities will be disproportionately affected by what amounts to a racist scheme and an opportunity that the British Government are trying to use to tackle — or apparently tackle — what they consider to be illegal immigration. This cannot be dressed up in any other way: it is racism; it is bigotry; and it is xenophobia; that is what the card is about. The issue of cross-border workers has been brought up across the Chamber. Others may choose to deny this, but the all-Ireland economy is booming. People in my constituency, elsewhere in Derry, in Donegal and across our country have the opportunity to move between the North and the South for employment. As Mr Gildernew mentioned, healthcare workers are the backbone of our economy. The scheme will present yet another barrier to the all-Ireland economy at a time when they are the backbone, driving the country forward. Border communities such as mine will feel the effects most acutely. We have to look at collaboration and cooperation, not at introducing barriers that will reduce opportunities for people to work across the country. I am glad that Mr Frew made the point about exclusion, because I have not been able to get clarity from his party or from the UUP about their view on our calling for people from the North to be exempt from the scheme. You did your survey, Mr Frew; regardless of whether you want England, Scotland and Wales to be exempt from this, surely people replied to that to tell you that the North should be exempt. Would any of those Members care to explain whether they will support the North being exempt from the proposal?

I will give way to Mr Brett.

You did not answer my question. I will be happy to give way again. We want the scheme to be scrapped. I am asking whether anybody in the DUP or the UUP will support people in the North being exempt from the scheme.

I will.

Mr Frew, I am sure that people will listen very carefully to your advice. You still have not answered my question, however. Will you support the fact that people in the North should be exempt, irrespective of what happens in England, Scotland and Wales?

OK, but do you agree that people in the North should be exempt? Again, there is no answer from the unionist Benches. It is extremely important that, in the North, we can have our Irish identity respected, just as you can have your British identity, any other identity or both a British identity and an Irish identity respected. I commend the motion to the House.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution opposes a proposed UK digital ID scheme and sets out practical objections at length: cost when public services are stretched, duplication of existing ID, exclusion of older people and those without digital access, disproportionate effects on ethnic minorities, and barriers for cross-border workers. It does use constitutional identity framing, describing the scheme as a "BritCard" that London would "impose" and an "insult to our people", and it presses the "unionist Benches" on an exemption for the North. However, that framing is aimed at a government policy and at opposing parties' positions, not at a community. The text closes by calling for Irish, British and dual identities alike to be "respected", so it does not promote hostility towards a group.

Public interest or divisiveness

The bulk of the speech deals with the substance of a live policy question and represents constituents in a border area who would be affected by it. The opening rhetoric about Irish citizenship against "any British Government" and the repeated challenge to unionist Members add a communal edge and some point-scoring. Overall, the identity element supports a policy argument rather than replacing it.

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