Member's statement: Historical Institutional Abuse: Redress for Victims and Survivors
Member's statement by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Historical Institutional Abuse: Redress for Victims and Survivors
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482389
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to bring attention to the fact that we are still failing the victims and survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse in Northern Ireland. Since being appointed as Chair of the Executive Office Committee, I have met victims and survivors, listened to their stories and felt the very raw anger and frustration that they continue to experience. Last week, the Committee heard evidence from the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse, Survivors North West, the Rosetta Trust and Survivors and Victims of Intuitional Abuse (SAVIA), and I thank them all for their contributions and time. I want to highlight a particular concern that they all raised, which is that, 14 years after the religious orders and institutions were put on notice that they would be obliged to make a redress and recognition contribution, and seven years on from the publication of the Hart inquiry report, the institutions responsible for systematically causing harm through what were plainly criminal acts against children have not contributed one single penny in Northern Ireland. The victims and survivors of that childhood abuse want and deserve accountability from them. At a previous Committee meeting, we heard from a TEO official who advised that an independent facilitator had been appointed and that two institutions were ready in mid February, and two were close behind, to make a contribution. Since then, we have not seen any movement. Quite frankly, I think that that is just lip service. We need to see firm action. We know that £90 million has been paid out so far in redress. However, that does not include associated costs, nor does it cover the cost of specialist services that the victims and survivors have rightly accessed. We know that children who have adverse childhood experiences will, unfortunately, experience poor health outcomes in later life. It is therefore even more important that the religious orders contribute to redress, without any further delay, for the pain, suffering and abuse that they perpetrated against all the innocent, vulnerable children. Of the people who made allegations to the Hart inquiry, the largest number spoke about experiences in four homes run by the Sisters of Nazareth and two homes run by the De La Salle Order. The inquiry also looked at three homes run by the Good Shepherd Sisters, a Church of Ireland home, two secular homes run by Barnardo's, five local authority homes and five juvenile justice institutions. There were allegations against 65 institutions or homes in total. In closing, I also want to put those institutions and homes on notice. As Chair of the Executive Office Committee, I will not let the issue go. It is a priority for me, and I will come back to it time and again until it is resolved to the satisfaction of victims and survivors.
466 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: 0.06 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.89 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:53 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.