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 5175580
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I understand the Member's point, because it has been raised with me before. We have to go back to what the purpose of the compensation scheme is, however. It was introduced at a time when businesses and individuals were often unable to get insurance because of the level of property damage that was being inflicted during the terrorist campaign here. Compensation Services was therefore designed to deal with such incidents, as opposed to incidents of simple criminal damage or even simple hate crime offences. For example, for the civil disorder in Ballymena, 27 claims were submitted to Compensation Services. Of those, one claim has been paid out, one has been withdrawn, 15 are awaiting police reports and 10 are awaiting further documentation that is needed to support the claim. Compensation Services does all that it can to progress such claims as expeditiously as possible, but, when it is waiting for police reports, information from the applicant or further evidence such as deeds, insurance information and any business interruption information, that is often outside its control. Some cases will not meet the threshold of three or more people being involved, but the scheme is meant to cover "riotous assembly". If it is not proven that that was the case when the criminal damage happened, it will therefore be down to the individual insurer for that particular business or home to step in.
231 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: 0.08 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.67 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.22 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| 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.