Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We have, to give us evidence, Paul Duffy, who is director of digital security and finance shared services; Geraldine Devine, who is director of digital security and engagement; and Colin Scott, who is head of information governance. We are discussing a proposed legislative consent memorandum (LCM) on the Data (Use and Access) Bill that we received today. The first thing that we need to establish is whether we even have time to pass an LCM. Before we get to that, could Paul, Colin or Geraldine give us a brief opening summary of what the Bill is, what it does and its proposed territorial scope?

Mr Paul Duffy (Department of Finance): Chair, I will commence and then hand over to Colin Scott, who will take you through the Bill in a little bit more detail.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Paul, because you are remote, it would be most helpful if you could speak up if possible. I know that it is slightly annoying sometimes when you are joining remotely, but could you just speak up a little bit? Go ahead.

Mr Duffy: Yes, Chair. Can you hear me OK now?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, we can.

Mr Duffy: Sorry, I have bit of a chest infection.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. No worries.

Mr Duffy: Sorry if I am a bit croaky on it.

Chair, I want to acknowledge at the outset that the handling of the proposed LCM for the Data (Use and Access) Bill has not progressed as we would have intended. We felt the need to avail ourselves of the urgent procedures approach, given that there was potential for the Bill to receive Royal Assent at Westminster. We have been engaging with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) for a number of months on the Bill. Colin will explain some of the processes that we went through to get clarification on some of the key elements. It was our understanding that Royal Assent was to be received on 19 May, which clearly has not happened. That was one of the reasons why we felt that there was an urgency to proceed. I appreciate that that then limits the time for Committee consideration.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just for my understanding: Paul, did you say that you thought that Royal Assent had already happened?

Mr Duffy: No. It was scheduled to happen on 19 May, but it has not happened. Our understanding is —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If Royal Assent had been scheduled for 19 May, there would have been no point in having an LCM of any kind.

Mr Duffy: We appreciate that. It is more likely now that Royal Assent will be towards the end of June. That is our understanding.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Ultimately, there is still really no point in having an LCM because we cannot give consent or otherwise.

Mr Duffy: Yes. In conversations with colleagues in DSIT, we were very keen that the consent process had, at least, commenced while they were progressing the Bill through the parliamentary process. We accept that it is unlikely that the process will be completed within the time frame, but it will have commenced.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): With the greatest of respect, the idea that commencing consent is any actual thing — it is not really about whether consent commences but that a devolved Assembly has the ability to give its consent at an early stage in the legislative process so that that can be reflected. For the record, there is no such thing, so far as I am aware, that commencing consent is somehow better than simply not having the process in the first place.

I will wind back, however. My initial question was this: what is the Data (Use and Access) Bill? When was it first proposed? It is really important to get that clear because we will not be able to discuss it in any detail as a Committee. It is really important that, first, we get clarity on what the Bill is before we get into the LCM. Can someone tell us what the Bill does?

Mr Duffy: Sure. I will hand over to Colin, who will talk about the purpose of the Bill and the three devolved areas that the Bill touches on.

Mr Colin Scott (Department of Finance): Good afternoon. The purpose of the Bill, as stated in the explanatory notes, is:

It is a very large and broad Bill. It came along after the DPDI Bill — the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill — which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government but failed to make its way fully through the Houses of Parliament. The Bill is largely based on that Bill, with some elements taken out. A number of elements then related to devolved Administrations. Specifically, there were issues relating to registers of births and deaths that extended to England and Wales only, information standards for health and adult social care that extended to England and Wales only, issues relating to smart meters that extended to England, Wales and Scotland only, and, of course, other matters, such as the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR), which applies to all the devolved regions, as well as smart data and amending section 35 of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2017, which relates to data-sharing between different bodies.

At this point, it is worth saying that there was a lot of concern about the Bill as it made its way through Parliament. There was a lot of discussion about it. We were notified in October 2024 that it was going through Parliament. It had already been through Committee Stage in the House of Lords and then through the House of Commons.

The devolved areas that relate to Northern Ireland are, however, rather minor compared with the larger areas that were discussed in the UK Parliament. Again, the three devolved areas are: smart data, which, in layman's terms, can best be described as having standardisation when you are seeking to port a bank account from one place to another, making the public's life easier; the National Underground Asset Register, which is rather self-explanatory, as it creates an asset register for underground assets and on which DFI was the policy lead; and amending section 35 of the DEA, which relates to data-sharing between public bodies. Part of that was to include some private businesses.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The purpose of the Bill is really to simplify data-sharing regulations.

Mr Scott: A fair way to describe it is to say that it is about modernising arrangements for the technological world that we live in. That is how it has been described to me.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Before we get to the principle of the LCM, I will say that I struggle to see how the Committee will be able to do any kind of meaningful scrutiny of it. The scrutiny might last just for as long we have you in front of us today. I can think of questions that, six or three months ago, I would have loved to ask about local human rights conditions and cross-border challenges.

Mr Scott: I can speak to those issues if you want and if you do not mind.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To be honest, Colin, I do mind. I do not think that I will have the opportunity to scrutinise the LCM properly. You can tell me what you think, but, to be honest, it feels like a slightly farcical position to be in when the Department is asking us to give consent to this legislation's applying in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, go ahead and address those two points for me. The first point is about data protection as it relates to the border and GDPR. That affects everyone, from the GAA to the Church of Ireland, who has shared data on a cross-border basis. The second is about the human rights provisions. Touch on those two points briefly, and then we will move on to the LCM process.

Mr Scott: The purpose of the LCM relates to three devolved matters: smart data; the NUAR, which is the National Underground Asset Register; and amending section 35 of the Digital Economy Act. All the big-ticket items, for want of a better phrase, such as automated decision-making, digital verification services, GDPR and data protection are not devolved so are not part of the devolved LCM.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I would not have known that until this afternoon. I did not know what was in the LCM, because we did not get it until an hour or two ago.

Mr Scott: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I do not think that the Committee can be held accountable for that.

Mr Scott: No.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): In any case, the Department wants us to proceed with the LCM. What is the situation with the LCM? Can there be an LCM at this point, in your view?

Mr Scott: To make myself clear, this is the first time that I have taken an LCM through the Department and the Assembly, so I am on a rather steep learning curve.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fair enough.

Mr Scott: I am not an expert in Assembly procedures, so I am not in a position to say whether there can or cannot, if that makes sense. I do not want to make an assessment of that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will ask —.

Mr Brett: There is a deputy secretary on the line.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Indeed. I was tempted to ask Paul.

With all due respect to your hard-working staff, Paul, should we be in this position? Should your staff have been in this position? I want to be constructive about this, but it is a very unusual and, frankly, slightly shambolic situation.

Go ahead, Paul. Can you tell us whether we should be passing an LCM? Can we pass an LCM?

Mr Duffy: I should say that Royal Assent has not yet been confirmed. The latest information is that it will be in late June. That has already moved a number of times. That is not to say that Royal Assent will be received by the end of June, so we can still progress with the process ahead of Royal Assent's being received.

In conversations with DSIT colleagues, they were very keen on the fact that there had at least been some engagement with the Northern Ireland Assembly on the matter and that the LCM process had commenced before it approached the Royal Assent window. The purpose of our moving very quickly to urgent procedures was to try to get an LCM in front of the Committee as quickly as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Commencing Royal Assent is a little like the old line about being half-pregnant: there is no such thing. Commencing Royal Assent is not a thing, I am afraid. Commencing late legislative consent is not a thing, and I am not sure that Royal Assent is relevant to the process, because Royal Assent is the Bill's finally becoming law. There is no meaningful legislative consent process if, the day before you grant Royal Assent, the Assembly says, "Oh, by the way, that is fine by us". The whole point is that we give our consent or otherwise way back in the process, and then there is the opportunity to amend the law or to do whatever with it.

I want to bring in others. Like others, I am trying to understand in real time what is going on here. I will bring in Diane Forsythe first. Deputy Chair, are you OK? You are. Eóin Tennyson?

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Geraldine, Paul and Colin for the update so far. It is difficult to be constructive, Chair, because we are in a situation now where there will be a statutory provision that affects Northern Ireland that the Northern Ireland Assembly has had absolutely no oversight over, scrutiny of or input into. That is not an acceptable position for the Committee or the Assembly to be placed in.

Reference was made to engagement that happened with the Whitehall Department over a number of months. We know that the Department wrote to the Committee on 20 November and made reference to a potential LCM. Has there been any engagement with stakeholders about that LCM?

Mr Duffy: We have had engagement with the two other lead Departments. For example, on smart data, there was engagement with the Department for the Economy, and on the National Underground Asset Register, there was engagement with the Department for Infrastructure. Both Departments were content with what was being proposed in the Bill. I do not want to play down the Bill's significance, but those elements are fairly minimal. They had no real issues with the Bill. I should say that we consulted the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) as part of the process. Back in December, we sought some guidance on article 2 of the Windsor framework compliance and got advice back saying that it was content with it. We also looked at some of the human rights issues that the commission raised. Again, those issues were outside the scope of devolved matters and were more to do with the wider implications of the Bill. We shared that information with DSIT to consider as part of its legislative process.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Paul. I still do not understand this point, and it is pretty fundamental to the issue. If the Department wrote to the Committee on 20 November and engaged DSO in December, and it was then fit to engage with other devolved Departments on the potential implications, how did we land ourselves in this position? We knew that the Bill was progressing and that a decision on legislative consent would be required. Is there a clear explanation that the Department can give us for why this has landed with us just today?

Mr Duffy: Other than just to say that the pace of the Bill's progress through Westminster was much quicker than anticipated, although it seems to have slowed now, hence Royal Assent being pushed back to late June.

Mr Tennyson: Paul, when did a submission go to the Minister to seek their view on or approval of any decision on the LCM?

Mr Duffy: We had engagement with the Minister in March. Some issues were raised then on which we had some clarification from DSIT.

We then provided a paper to the Executive on, I think, 9 May. That was considered at the Executive meeting on 15 May.

Mr Tennyson: Therefore, the Minister has been aware of this since March, and the Committee is finding out about it on 28 May.

Mr Duffy: Yes. The Minister had some queries that needed to be resolved, and we needed to engage with DSIT to get clarification on some of those queries.

Mr Tennyson: This is the final question from me, Paul. What was the trigger point that exposed this that resulted in the great urgency to bring it before the Committee today?

Mr Duffy: It was the impending Royal Assent deadline. We were trying to move as quickly as possible to ensure that we progressed as much as we could before reaching that milestone in the parliamentary process.

Mr Tennyson: Who brought that impending deadline to the Department's attention, given that you said that the pace at which the Bill was progressing took you by surprise?

Mr Duffy: That happened through the ongoing engagement with DSIT.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just for clarity, Paul, you said that the Bill moved very quickly. We are getting the LCM today, which is 28 May, for a Bill that will probably receive Royal Assent within a month. You said that you were surprised by how fast it moved. The Scottish Government laid an LCM on 22 November 2024. The Welsh Government laid an LCM in the Senedd on 2 January 2025. That is six months ago — nearly seven — and four months ago respectively. It seems extraordinary that they were able to lay LCMs months ago, and we are getting ours today.

Mr Duffy: As I said at the outset, Chair, it is not a satisfactory position to put the Committee in. We completely —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will bring in Paul Frew.

Mr Duffy: — accept that. The complication that we had in the process was the fact that we needed to get clarification on article 2 of the Windsor framework. We also got some feedback from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that we wanted to get some clarification on before proceeding.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Was the delay with article 2 in the Minister saying, "I'm not going to give sign-off to this until we get article 2 clarified", or was there an official decision to wait until there was clarification of article 2?

Mr Duffy: We embarked on getting clarification at official level. We got a UK devolution analysis, and then we asked for DSO advice on the Windsor framework article 2 element of that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Mr Duffy: We felt that, if we did not have answers to those sorts of questions, we would not, in our engagement with the Committee, be able to provide assurances that there were no implications for either of those two areas.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Paul Frew.

Mr Frew: I am still somewhat puzzled in that I think that what we are looking at here is an absolutely massive failure by the Department to follow legislative process. I am not sure how it will impact on Northern Ireland.

You keep talking, Paul, about Royal Assent as though it were part of the legislative process. I have yet to see a Bill that has been amended at Royal Assent. Surely Royal Assent is basically the Bill being put into law in what is, technically, a ceremonial rubber-stamping exercise. All the amendments, the work, the details and the scrutiny of the Bill are dealt with in the stages before that. The opportunity to amend and for Northern Ireland to give its consent is in those processes, either in the Lords or the Commons. Even if the Executive or Department were now minded to give their consent to the Bill, how do we functionally do that? If we do not do it, does that mean that the legislation is disapplied here, meaning that Northern Ireland will be completely out of the loop of this legislative provision? If so, how does that happen, what amendments are tabled and when and what impact will that have on Northern Ireland and the public?

Mr Duffy: The three elements of the Bill that relate to devolved matters — smart data, the National Underground Asset Register and the Digital Economy Act — are fairly minor elements of it overall, and the implications for Northern Ireland of their being implemented are minimal.

Mr Frew: You say that they are minor elements, but you have to define "minor" almost, because the Bill will create a differential between the nation states of the UK. First, is the Department minded to fix that anomaly? Secondly, imagine the situation if major elements of the Bill were related to devolved matters, with a massive impact, positive or negative, on the Northern Ireland public. How can consent be given or otherwise when, in many ways, you have missed your slot? How can the public and a Committee such as this have confidence in a Department that misses a slot in a legislative process? That is what Departments do: go through legislative processes. How did we miss our slot?

Mr Duffy: I absolutely accept that the handling of the matter has not been as we intended at the outset. I apologise to the Committee for the lack of opportunity to consider it. Even though the items in the Bill that are on devolved powers are fairly minor, the Committee has not been given sufficient time to consider them.

Mr Frew: It is not even about what the Committee has had to look at or our not being allowed to do any work on it because we have not been given the time. The Department has missed its slot, so, in many respects, Westminster is blind to Northern Ireland. It cannot have any consideration at all of Northern Ireland's views. Do you know what the practicalities are of our missing our slot? Is there a mechanical, functional process that disapplies the Bill in Northern Ireland? Given the failure of the Department, effectively, in missing its slot, do we know what the impacts are on Northern Ireland? Whether or not the provisions are minor, what does the Bill mean for Northern Ireland?

Mr Duffy: It is my understanding that those elements of the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland even without consent. However, you are right that there has not been an opportunity for the Committee to scrutinise and give a view on those elements. Is there a mechanism to do so thereafter? I would need to clarify that.

Mr Frew: I need to know this: given the failure of the Department of Finance that has meant that Westminster has heard nothing from the Department — from Northern Ireland — will the Bill be disapplied in Northern Ireland by default, or will Westminster have to follow a process to disapply it in Northern Ireland? Is the movement in the functions of Westminster on that negative or positive? That is what we need to know.

Mr Duffy: My understanding is that the elements of the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr Frew: We need clarity on that, because, ultimately, that will change. This creates a vacuum, if you like, in the law in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Either it creates a vacuum in the law, or the LCM process is a bit of a husk. Paul Frew, have you finished, or do you have more questions?

Mr Frew: Yes. Go ahead.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This question is for Paul Duffy or, indeed, the other witnesses. You said that only three components of the Bill affect Northern Ireland. We have the explanatory memorandum that was published for the Bill. Annex A is headed "Territorial extent and application in the United Kingdom".

The Committee Clerk: I will send that to members digitally now.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Members have that now. At page 147 of the explanatory memorandum, there is a table that is detailed but easy to understand. It lists the provisions, with 130 or 140 clauses and 16 schedules.

Under the Northern Ireland heading, there are two columns, the first of which is headed "Extends and applies to Northern Ireland?" Basically, everything extends and applies to Northern Ireland, but obviously not all of it. The second column is "Legislative Consent Motion process engaged?" You said, however, that there are three core elements. From this document, I think that there are at least 20 or 30 that appear to engage individual clauses. They may be listed under thematic headings, but it is certainly more than just a couple of areas in the LCM process. That is in the explanatory memorandum, which was published, I think, months ago.

Mr Duffy: Yes. I was maybe not clear enough. The LCM process looks only at those three elements: smart data; the National Underground Asset Register; and amending section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. Colin may wish to expand on that a little more.

Mr Scott: The provisions deal with those three areas — smart data, the NUAR and section 35 — and a number of clauses in the Bill relate to them. We got devolution analysis from the UK Government and advice from DSO on that devolution analysis that said that those were the only three areas that deal with devolution matters. DSO agreed with the UK Government's advice, so it was on that basis that we proceeded.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): When did you get that advice?

Mr Scott: We got that advice at the end of October 2024.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You got that advice in October, and the Minister engaged on the matter in March. Presumably, at some stage, the Minister or his predecessor was engaged on it before. The matter was flagged to the Committee first in November, and we were then on a watching and waiting brief. I do not understand why we did not hear any more about it until today.

I want to cover the fact that, on 7 May, at the Bill's Third Reading, the responsible Minister from the UK Department said:

What procedural reasons were holding things up that the Minister articulated on the Floor of the House of Commons? I presume that it was in the Commons — or in a House of Parliament.

Mr Duffy: I am assuming that those reasons were the advice that we sought from DSO on the Windsor framework and the clarification on some of the feedback that we had from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Those issues were being clarified before we could proceed.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Was there any correspondence between you and the UK Government at either official or ministerial level? It sounds as though someone at some point said to the Minister, "Where is this and what is happening with it?". Was there any other correspondence, I guess, between the start of this year and today, or whenever it was — 16 May — when the urgent procedure request went to the Executive? Was there any correspondence saying, "What is going on here?" and what was your response? Was your response that you were seeking clarification on the Windsor framework point? What was it?

Mr Duffy: I will ask Colin to say a little bit about the correspondence and the engagement with DSIT, because he has been closer to it.

Mr Scott: I am sorry: what dates were you talking about? I want to be clear in my answer.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): On 7 May, a UK Minister said:

For the record, at that point, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd had given legislative consent. Their Governments laid LCMs in the previous autumn, and their Parliaments had given legislative consent. We had not even had an LCM laid, let alone a vote in the Assembly.

My question is this: between the new year and mid-May, were the UK Government asking you, "Where the hell is legislative consent from Northern Ireland? When is it going to happen?". Did they ask those questions, and what did you say in response?

Mr Scott: I can answer that question. I have had weekly meetings with DSIT colleagues from the middle of October until now. They were well aware of the issues that we were facing as we went along. Following the DSO advice on the UK devolution analysis at the end of October, there was a period in which we were seeking DSO advice on compliance or non-compliance with article 2 of the Windsor framework. That was a more convoluted process than the devolution analysis process, because the DSO had to liaise directly with its DSIT colleagues to access the information to allow it to come to a conclusion. It was not until the middle of February that the DSO came back to us with a conclusion.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The DSO did not get back to you until the middle of February.

Mr Scott: Yes. We had to go to it to get an expert opinion. During that period, I was writing to the different Departments to try to get an understanding of the policy leads. For instance, DFI was leading on the NUAR, while DFE had an interest in the smart data provisions. From March onwards, there were queries from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It provided a briefing in which it raised a number of queries that we were not in a position to answer, so we had to ask our DSIT colleagues to address the issues on our behalf. From then on, we were trying to move the process through the Executive to get the LCM to the Assembly. To be honest, our DSIT colleagues were well aware of all the problems that we were having. I also sit on a group with representatives from the two other devolved nations. We have been meeting every three weeks to discuss the LCM. I can only apologise for not having progressed the LCM further before now.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Colin, I appreciate your apology, and fair play to you for fronting up. I get that it requires professionalism and courage to do that so. It is not about assigning blame. Rather, I am just trying to understand the process.

Mr Scott: Do not worry. I am just here to tell you exactly what happened, how it happened and why it happened.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Good. I appreciate that, because it is our job to find out what happened.

I will now bring in other members who are waiting to ask questions.

Mr Brett: Thank you, colleagues, for appearing before the Committee. Colin, if you were meeting officials at Westminster every week, how was the Bill's progress a surprise?

Mr Scott: Sorry, to clarify, I was not meeting Westminster colleagues every week. I was meeting colleagues in DSIT, which is the Department that has primary responsibility for getting the legislation through. I had two contacts in that Department and was meeting weekly with them.

Mr Brett: Aye, but DSIT is a Westminster Department.

Mr Scott: I take your point. Apologies.

Mr Brett: Was DSIT not telling you that the Bill had had, for example, its First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading?

Mr Scott: Yes. The way in which I would describe it is that there was a window of opportunity that we essentially missed in which to progress the LCM in a timely fashion. The main problem was that, compared with the other devolved Administrations, the biggest issue that we had was with article 2 of the Windsor framework, because of the relationships and the sensitivity of the information. Allowing the DSO to come to a view on article 2 pushed back our work by a good couple of months. We were never really given a definitive time frame for when the Bill would receive Royal Assent. We had a good idea of when it would, as well as a good idea throughout the process of by when we needed to get things progressed. Unfortunately, in this instance, we missed the date.

Mr Brett: Royal Assent is usually irrelevant to an LCM process, because legislative consent needs to be given before the Bill's Third Reading, given that amendments may have already have been tabled and made.

In your view, is it the position now that the UK Government will not disapply the provisions in Northern Ireland if the Committee and the Executive can take a view on the LCM in advance of the Bill's final stage, which is scheduled for Monday in the House of Lords? Why are you referencing Royal Assent?

Mr Scott: When I was discussing the process with my DSIT colleagues, Royal Assent was used as an end point, for want of a better phrase. I am not an expert —

Mr Brett: I get that.

Mr Scott: — on legal matters and on taking things through the House of Commons, the House of Lords and even the Northern Ireland Assembly. Unfortunately, I am rather ignorant of some of the matters when it comes to the finer detail.

Royal Assent was our reference point, again for want of a better phrase, even though it is a reference point that is rather past the post. That is why I keep referring to Royal Assent, unfortunately. All the way through the process, our DSIT colleagues were well aware that we were having issues, but we always hoped that we could push the LCM through the Assembly far earlier than we have attempted to.

Mr Brett: Are you aware of the letter, dated 16 May, that the Minister of Finance wrote to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister?

Mr Scott: Yes.

Mr Brett: The third paragraph of the letter states:

The words "that position" refer to seeking agreement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister to table a legislative consent motion under urgent procedures. On what date did Minister O'Dowd receive Minister Muir's approval?

Mr Scott: I cannot answer that, unfortunately. That is outside my bailiwick. That information sits within his office, not mine.

Ms Geraldine Devine (Department of Finance): I wrote to Minister O'Dowd with the draft Executive paper. It was to be tabled on 15 May. Things then changed at the Assembly, and the matter was brought up under any other business, but I believe that the Executive paper was circulated, and we did receive formal notification back from DAERA to say that it was content. We have that in writing. I can double-check the date, but that is why that sentence was included in the letter.

Mr Brett: The second letter is the reply from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Unfortunately, the Executive Office does not seem to date its letters. Do you know on what date that letter was received from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister giving approval for the use of the urgent procedures mechanism?

Ms Devine: It was late last week. Again, I can clarify the date for you. I will have it among my emails. It was late last week, however.

Mr Duffy: It was on 22 May, which was last Thursday.

Mr Brett: You therefore got that letter on 22 May, and the Department of Finance then laid the LCM in the Business Office today.

Ms Devine: I was not aware of that. I am eight weeks in the Department of Finance, so apologies on my behalf as well. I was not aware that the Minister had to write officially to the Assembly to get the LCM laid when I put up the Executive papers and submitted the LCM for the Executive paper on 15 May. I assumed, wrongly, that that started the Assembly process. When I found out that it did not, I drafted the note, but, with the bank holiday, it was Tuesday morning before it went out.

Mr Brett: No problem. The Committee was then made aware through the Business Office.

The Committee Clerk: We got those emails late this morning from the Department and then from the Business Office. They came in fairly close to each other.

Mr Brett: No problem. This is a learning curve for everyone. Is the Department now going to talk to the guys in DSIT to make sure that no amendments are made on Monday by the Government that will disapply the provisions in Northern Ireland as a result of the LCM process here not having been done?

Mr Scott: I can certainly seek clarification on that. That is not a problem at all. I have a direct line to DSIT at the minute, because the issue is very high on its list of priorities.

Mr Brett: It would be very useful for the Committee to know whether, ultimately, the provisions are not going to be disapplied. Perhaps the process is moot and there are wider discussions to be had about scrutiny, but my concern is that Northern Ireland may be excluded from the Bill. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): So that we are clear, the LCM states that the advice from the DSO, which is consistent with what the UK Government say, is that the provisions engage article 2 of the Windsor framework, because they touch on rights and assets but that they are consistent with article 2, meaning that they are not in contradiction with it. Is that fair, or is there any doubt about that? Is that the Department's stated position?

Mr Duffy: Yes, that is the Department's position.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is clearly the main source of delay, however.

Miss Dolan: Sorry, I was dropping in and out of the Committee meeting because I had to go to an event in Enniskillen. I understand that this is a complex issue, but if the LCM was agreed at the Executive only last week, surely it could not have come before the Committee any sooner.

Mr Brett: It was not agreed at the Executive.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If that is a question that is addressed to me, Jemma, I will say that we could have heard about and been briefed on the LCM ages ago. In any case, I will bring in the officials. Paul Duffy wants to address that point.

Mr Duffy: There would have been opportunity [Inaudible.]

Sorry, can everyone hear me? The sound seems to be breaking up.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I ask everybody who is not speaking to mute themselves, please.

Paul, please address the specific point that Jemma Dolan raised about whether it was not possible to brief the Committee until you had got Executive agreement.

Mr Duffy: In this instance, we found that we did not have the opportunity, because of the pace at which things moved and because we did not get Executive approval until last Thursday. Reflecting on where we have found ourselves, I will say that there may have been an earlier opportunity to engage with the Committee, even though we might not have been in a position to answer some of the questions that the Committee may have raised about the Windsor framework and the Human Rights Act 1998. We agree that both impact on Northern Ireland. We therefore could have engaged with the Committee earlier, but we would not have been as well informed as we are now. Unfortunately, however, that has limited the opportunity for the Committee to consider the LCM.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): With respect, I am not sure that we can do any consideration beyond what we are doing now, and I am not sure whether we can call what we are doing consideration of the detail. Jemma, do you have another point to make?

Miss Dolan: The Windsor framework was mentioned. Scotland and Wales do not have that consideration. Does the LCM now deal with the human rights concerns about the Windsor framework?

Mr Duffy: The issues with the Windsor framework [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Members, again it is difficult to hear Paul. Apologies, Paul. I need everyone who is not Paul Duffy to go on mute. Paul will answer Jemma's question, after which I will bring in Gerry Carroll.

Mr Duffy: We sought advice from DSIT on the concerns that the Human Rights Commission raised, but they were not concerns about matters that impacted on the three devolved areas on which the Bill touches on which the LCM is seeking consent. Those human rights issues are wider concerns about the Bill to be explored through the UK parliamentary process.

Miss Dolan: Thank you, Paul.

Mr Carroll: There is last-minute, and then there is this, which is more like Fergie time. It is unacceptable for the Committee to be asked to give its view on the LCM, and I do not think that we should. We should not be bounced into doing so when there are huge questions about it. I appreciate the officials' being here, but, because we got the LCM at the last minute, there are questions to be asked that I have not had the chance to prepare.

Colin spoke about the three themes that are applicable to the North.

A union that represents and organises couriers from Just Eat, Deliveroo and other order companies told me that the main contention with the Bill in Westminster is that it removes protections against automatic decisions being made that impact on those workers, or employees, however they are described.

I heard some mention of human rights. It has been implied that the Bill has been given the thumbs up when it comes to human rights considerations. I have not heard any such detail that confirms that, however. I would like to explore the issue further, but, given the process and the way in which the LCM has been presented to me and the Committee, I do not think that we are able do that. It is therefore unfair for the Department to ask us to consider something that we are being told is small fry but that could be bigger. Given that AI is set to explode by 2027, the issues could be even bigger in the next two, three, five or 10 years. I am not happy with the process either. There are huge questions that have not been addressed today, and I do not know whether those are applicable to the LCM or to the Bill itself. That is unclear to me.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Those are fair enough comments, Gerry, but they are broad points. Do you need them to be addressed by the officials, or are you happy that they are on the record?

Mr Carroll: I would like to know whether the officials had any of the specific concerns looked at. I am pretty sure that the App Drivers and Couriers Union in England made a lot of noise about the Bill. I presume that it put in a submission at the Bill's Committee Stage. I cannot say that for certain, so I do not know whether there has been any direct conversation with the relevant officials in Westminster. I just —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You want one of the officials to pick up on that specific point about trade union engagement, specifically for delivery couriers.

We are having issues of our own with a cherry picker or something, which has decided to provide a glorious cacophony in the background of our Committee hearing, thus adding to the sense of farce and chaos. We will be raising that issue separately.

Go ahead, Paul.

Mr Scott: Do you want me to speak to that issue, Paul, or do you want to take it?

Mr Duffy: Go ahead, Colin. I will come in after you.

Mr Scott: All that I would say about that is that I understand the concerns about the wider implications of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. In the North, however, the LCM relates, and all my work has related, to the three areas that are set out in the documentation: smart data, the NUAR, and the amendment to section 35 of the DEA. The wider concerns are not devolved matters and are therefore not included in the legislative consent memorandum.

Mr Duffy: We saw the briefing that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission produced, and we ensured that it was brought to DSIT's attention, because its concerns are about the implications of the wider Bill, rather than about the devolved matters.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is important to say that, although our responsibility as MLAs is for devolved matters, we are entitled to raise issues, as Gerry just did, that are about the broader remit of the Bill in order to establish context and to represent our constituents. There is nothing illegitimate about doing that.

In a sense, we cannot understand the devolved bits unless we understand the policy context of the rest of the Bill, particularly those bits that apply to the UK as a whole, so the issues are relevant. We are only now getting a briefing on the Bill writ large. We cannot understand how the specific devolved bits interact with the rest of the legislation when we find out about the LCM an hour before the Committee meeting. I fundamentally challenge the idea of you saying, "Sure, you don't need to worry about all of the rest of the Bill. Those matters are not devolved". We need to understand how the two interact.

Are you happy enough with that, Gerry? Perhaps you are not. Have we covered your stuff, or is there anything that you wish to add?

Mr Carroll: If there is to be no LCM — there may or may not be — the Bill will apply here, because of the other provisions that will apply here. That goes to your point about the entire Bill being relevant. I do not think that the concerns have been addressed. I would like the officials to come back to me with the detail and an exploration of those concerns — on automated decision-making in particular — and on how the Bill will impact on workers' rights. With respect, all that we are hearing is that there are three themes, and that is it. There are cross-cutting issues that will probably apply from the Bill, however.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Those points are well made. We will have to raise them with the Department, either through the Committee or individually.

I will try to summarise the position. There is a Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is big and wide-ranging. There are specific provisions, albeit we are told that they cover discrete devolved areas, but when we look at the Bill's explanatory notes, we see that the whole Bill relates to Northern Ireland, and there are dozens of clauses that engage the LCM process. As legislators, we therefore need to be confident that we understand the remit, extent and potential impact of those clauses. The Department has laid a legislative consent memorandum, but there is no sense that, even if a legislative consent motion is voted on and agreed or not agreed by the Assembly, it will have any impact on the Westminster process, because it is effectively too late for it to do so. Is that correct, Paul Duffy?

Mr Duffy: Yes, Chair. That is largely correct.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The purpose of this session is for the Committee to say that it has looked at the LCM, but it does not matter whether we say yea or nay to it, because it will have no impact on the policy, and there is no opportunity for us to scrutinise it. That is a fair summary of the position. I am not trying to be pejorative, but that is a fair description.

Mr Duffy: Yes. If the LCM were to be approved, the record would show that the Committee had considered it. If the Committee were not to endorse the LCM process, what you say would still apply, but the UK Government would then have legislated without the Assembly's consent.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Leaving aside what the Committee has said, when is it hoped to debate the legislative consent motion in the Assembly?

Mr Duffy: I am not sure about the timeline.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It needs to be in the next month, I presume.

Mr Duffy: Yes. It needs to be in the next couple of weeks, but I am not sure of the date.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am slightly speechless at the thought that we are allegedly going to debate the LCM but that we cannot say what its purpose is or what will happen if the legislative consent motion passes or falls. There are quite big questions not just for the Department but for the Assembly to answer about process, as well as bigger questions about devolution and how we got to this position. At this point, I do not have any further questions.

I acknowledge and appreciate that individuals work very hard. I do not want to make individuals, particularly people who are mid-ranking officials doing their best, feel as though they are being unnecessarily held accountable. I acknowledge, in a way that is professional and respectful, that people are under a lot of pressure, but there are big questions to be asked, including of the Executive. We need to understand how all of this happened. We will release all of you now.

Frankly, I am slightly aghast and a bit lost for words at the situation in which the Committee and the Assembly have been placed, but we will have to think through how we handle the situation. Thank you for your time, and thank you for having the wherewithal to front up at the Committee, because it is probably not the most fun thing that you have ever had to do in your professional lives. We will revisit the matter.

Mr Duffy: Thank you.