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 4937561
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his important question. I have met many who applied to the scheme: those who were severely injured and those who have permanent mental scars as a result of what they experienced during the Troubles. The scheme is designed to try to support them. I am pleased to say that I have been very much involved in supporting the scheme throughout and in pushing the UK Government, at a time when this place was not sitting, to introduce legislation. I am on the record as really pushing the issue at Westminster. As I outlined in my initial answer, the situation is very complex. At least one in three cases that comes before the payments board includes multiple incidents. Much of the data is historical and is across records that have been kept over many decades. Unfortunately, it is taking time to issue payments. I am pleased to say, however, that the amount paid out in 2023-24 was around the £24 million mark. In 2024-25, the amount has increased to in and around £46 million. That is almost double the amount that was paid out in the previous year. That is a very good indication that the processing of applications is speeding up and that money is being got out to people, with almost £90 million having now been paid out to give essential support to those who suffered the most during the Troubles.
237 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: 0.05 (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 (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.59 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.40 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.