Member's statement: Historical Clerical Child Abuse
Member's statement by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 23 April 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Historical Clerical Child Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484992
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to put on record my frustration at the ongoing delays in the interdepartmental working group between the Executive Office and the Department of Health bringing forward any meaningful work on historical clerical child abuse. Members will be aware that that working group was established in 2017 to pick up on areas that fell outside the remit of the inquiry into historical institutional abuse, including mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and historical clerical child abuse. We know that work has been progressing on the mother-and-baby homes, and I look forward to chairing a session on that topic at the Committee for the Executive Office in May. Work on clerical abuse, however, appears to be far behind after seven years. The Executive Office's website states:
"A high-level investigation plan has been developed and it is hoped to procure delivery partners by Autumn 2023."
That has not happened and there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, from papers provided to Committee members, we have seen that the Executive Office intends to:
"commission research into Historical Clerical Child Abuse to inform next steps".
It is many years, probably six, since I accompanied members of Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice Northern Ireland to a meeting with TEO officials, and I was advised then that that was TEO's plan. At a meeting of the Health Committee in November 2020, we were told by representatives of the working group that they were:
"about to embark on the commissioning of research that will, ultimately, determine the Executive's actions to address the needs of individuals affected by historical clerical child abuse."
We were advised that the timescale for commissioning that research was "the coming weeks" and that the period covered by the research would be from 1968, due to the introduction of the Children and Young Persons Act in that year. I include that date in my remarks to indicate that time is not on our side in securing robust evidence. There is a recurring theme: always just about to move forward with the research but never quite doing it. One of my main frustrations is that the procurement process, when it begins, can, we know, take months. Then, the research is conducted and the report is written, and, before we know it, two more years are lost. Then, the officials have to take their time to review the findings, conclusions and recommendations and consider what to put to the Ministers. Meanwhile, the victims and survivors of historical clerical abuse are left with the pain, shame and lifelong trauma of what happened to them. We can no longer continue to tolerate that. I call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to sign off on the terms of reference for the research.
459 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.68 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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.