Debate contribution: Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme: North Antrim Applicants
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme: North Antrim Applicants
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937552
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Victims' Payments Board, which makes decisions on entitlement to payment through the victims' payments scheme, has advised that the inclusion of postcode information when applying is not mandatory. That means that a large number of applicants do not provide that data, which means that it is not possible to use the board's IT system to get a breakdown of successful applications by constituency. A manual review of applications would be required to retrieve that information. I have communicated, though, that I believe that the information would be useful, particularly in the planning of services, were it communicated to the Department of Health. We know that many people have come forward to the board, and they have not been diagnosed with conditions, particularly on the mental health side. Having the data would be really useful for the planning of support services. As I outlined, at the moment, it is challenging to extract it from the system. As of the week commencing 28 April 2025, more than 11,000 applications have been submitted to the scheme and a total of 3,204 determinations have been made, resulting in more than £89 million being paid to eligible applicants since the scheme opened for applications.
200 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.54 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.44 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:22 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.