Debate contribution: Criminal Damage Compensation Scheme
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Damage Compensation Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175576
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The criminal damage compensation scheme provides important financial support to victims where there has been physical damage to a property or a vehicle in Northern Ireland and where it can be shown that the damage was caused unlawfully, maliciously or wantonly by an unlawful assembly of three or more people or maliciously by a person acting?in connection with?an unlawful association such as an act of terrorism. Compensation may also be payable for agricultural property or property that is free from rates, if the damage was caused maliciously or deliberately. Most commercial insurance policies should cover businesses for damage to their premises, including interruption to business operations. Some policies will also cover businesses that are not damaged but whose trade is affected in the aftermath. Where insurance is in place, companies will be available to provide immediate support to victims of criminal damage. If unable to secure support from an insurer, the criminal damage compensation scheme provides an important source of assistance for victims. As with all schemes, it is important to keep them under review. Consideration is being given to the need for any changes to the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of victims. Any proposals for change would be subject to consultation.
206 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: 0.03 (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).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.53 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.45 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:27 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.