Debate contribution: The draft Damages (Process for Setting Rate of Return) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Damages (Process for Setting Rate of Return) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496255
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether my colleague had indicated that he wished to speak. It is fine. I thank the Members who have spoken today for their engagement. I will address some of the points that were raised during the discussion, particularly those about the cost of insurance premiums in Northern Ireland, which, we all recognise, is an issue and was of concern to the Committee. Many factors contribute to insurance premium costs, and the discount rate is just one of them. My Department is not in a position to assess the extent to which the discount rate affects the cost of insurance; that is a matter for insurers. Irrespective of that, however, the legally established principle of 100% compensation means that the impact on insurance costs cannot be taken into account in how the rate is set. As a matter of law, claimants are entitled to be fully compensated, and that is the only consideration that we can take into account in that regard. I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on the detail of insurance costs or to speculate on the extent to which the discount rate affects the cost of insurance locally, but it is common knowledge that a number of factors contribute to the premium costs. The discount rate is one such factor, but the following all make a contribution to the overall picture: the number and nature of thefts here; levels of fraud and uninsured driving; the number and nature of road traffic accidents; the make and model of cars; road safety; road infrastructure; the cost of repairs; the levels of damages awards; the number of new and novice drivers; and the insurance premium tax rate. For historical reasons, general damages for pain and suffering, for example, also tend to be higher in Northern Ireland than they are in other jurisdictions. That is because the assessment of damages in Northern Ireland was in the hands of juries until about 1987. That may be a reason that insurance costs in Northern Ireland are slightly higher, but, again, that is not relevant specifically to the discount rate. The discount rate is applied only to special damages, which are measurable financial costs and losses. It is also worth noting that the guidance on general damages has been updated recently in England and Wales and separately in Northern Ireland and confirms continuing differences between the guidance on the level of general damages awards between jurisdictions. If we look at house insurance, for example, on which the discount rate has no impact, we see that it is also higher in Northern Ireland than it is in other regions. It is therefore not the discount rate in and of itself that is the only determining factor, although it may contribute in some places. The regulations will ensure that the personal injury discount rate for Northern Ireland, when set by the Government Actuary later this year, will continue to give effect to the legal principle of 100% compensation and therefore be fair to claimants and defendants.
510 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: 0.02 (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 (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:42 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.