Debate contribution: Clerical Child Abuse

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 27 January 2026.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

27 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Clerical Child Abuse

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5345077

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I rise to speak to what should be a straightforward and urgent matter: the long-awaited response from the Executive Office on the findings and recommendations of research into the deeply sensitive issue of clerical child sexual abuse, which was submitted by the interdepartmental working group to the Department in July 2025. The research was substantial and comprised three independent projects that had been commissioned by the Executive Office: a review of historical records; an oral history of the experience and expectations of victims and survivors; and an in-depth review of safeguarding policy and practice in faith-based organisations. The research was designed to inform policy on how the Executive will address the legacy of clerical abuse and on the prevention of future abuse in faith-based settings. That work was shaped, in large part, by the survivors' reference group. I acknowledge the courage of the victims and survivors who participated and their generosity with their time. They participated at significant personal cost, because they believed that telling their stories would lead to accountability, justice and reform. The Alliance Party's concern today is not about the quality of that work but about what has happened — or, more accurately, what has not happened — since. Members will know that throughout the mandate and beyond, I have consistently raised issues of institutional and clerical abuse in the Assembly and with departmental officials. I have done so on behalf of the victims and survivors who shared their experiences with me directly and spoke with courage and openness in the hope that that would lead to action. Listening to those experiences and hearing how abuse continues to shape their lives, years or even decades later, fundamentally changes how one understands delay and inaction. That is why the absence of visible progress since the reports were submitted to the Executive Office is so concerning. To understand why that delay matters so deeply, we need to confront a more difficult question: how was the abuse allowed to continue unchecked and able to remain hidden for so long? Uncomfortable as it is, the answer speaks to the power that was held over young people and vulnerable adults by institutions and individuals. That power was exercised in settings that were presented as places of safety, morality and care, in which children were taught to trust authority and not question it. Those were trusting young children, teenagers and adults, some of whom were already isolated, struggling and seeking reassurance for belonging when they entered environments that they were told were safe. Instead, they experienced betrayal, often by people whom they were encouraged to trust. As that betrayal came with authority, many did not have the confidence to speak up. When some did speak up, they were dismissed or silenced. That dynamic of silence, power and fear is the central reason for the abuse remaining hidden for so long. Survivors speak of two harms: the abuse itself and the decades of silence and institutional indifference that followed. That is why responsibility for acting with urgency now rests so heavily with the Assembly and the Executive Office. That frustration has been articulated powerfully by survivors. Nikella Holmes, who contributed to the research, has said that survivors:

"came forward to relive the most horrible thing that happened in their lives ... hoping they would make a change and make things better, but it now seems like we are being ignored."

Those words should give us all pause for thought. It is also important to make clear that such abuse was not and is not confined to one denomination or faith. The institutions and the perpetrators differed, but the victims did not. Unfortunately, as we in the Assembly know all too well, the same patterns emerged in many different faith-based settings with different forms of abuse, whether that was against the children who were put in children's homes, in the case of the historical institutional abuse, or against the vulnerable mothers and pregnant women who were put into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and, sometimes, workhouses. The harm does not end for victims and survivors when the abuse ends: it follows them into adulthood, shaping their relationships, their mental and physical health and their sense of safety in the world. Delays like this reopen wounds, retraumatise survivors and force them, once again, to sit with uncertainty, waiting for acknowledgement that what they endured mattered and was wrong. When it first became clear, last summer, that little movement had followed the submission of the research, I publicly expressed concern about the lack of progress and the need for timely engagement with victims and survivors. Unfortunately, those concerns remain. In recent months, I have raised the issue at the Committee for the Executive Office with departmental officials, and I have tabled a series of questions for written answer seeking clarity on whether those reports will be published, whether an action plan is being developed and whether funding and a clear timeline for delivery have been identified. The responses have followed a similar pattern. We were told that the findings were being carefully considered, that no decisions had yet been taken and that officials remained committed to keeping victims and survivors informed. The difficulty is that survivors do not feel informed, and I know that all MLAs received a letter at the start of the year outlining their concern on that. They have felt that they have been left waiting. That is not victim-centred, and that is not trauma-informed practice. We use those terms very freely right across our public services, but, when communication is not forthcoming and that communication line is flat, victims will once again feel that they are being silenced. It should not take the tabling of a motion in the Chamber for action to follow. I am aware that, yesterday, an email was received by campaigners at 6.32 pm from the private office offering a meeting with the junior Ministers. I welcome that and will not be churlish about it, but Members need to know that that request for a meeting was submitted on 19 November. Survivors were encouraged to engage in the process in good faith, and those delays in responding severely risk undermining the trust on which the whole process depends. Victims and survivors understand complexity. They accept that serious findings and recommendations take time to consider. What they find very difficult to understand — rightly so — is why requests for information or meetings go unanswered and why engagement so often follows only when political pressure is applied. As Anthony Gribben of the Dromore group has said, it really is:

"time for decision-makers in Stormont to grasp the nettle and make bold policy decisions that will stamp out clerical sexual abuse once and for all."

This is not a time for haste; this is a time for political leadership. Complexity cannot excuse a lack of communication with the very people whom this work is meant to support, particularly where sensitivity and survivor well-being must come first. I want to pick up on a point that Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International raised with MLAs this morning in an email. He said:

"The ongoing abuse crises within local churches and faith organisations should underline why this is not an ‘historic’ issue."

I do want to impress upon that. This is different. I have already outlined the issue of historical abuse of children in homes and in mother-and-baby institutions. We know from stories that have been coming forward and from the inquiries that have been going on in some of the Churches that this remains today and is a current safeguarding issue in some places. The motion does not ask Ministers to pre-empt outcomes but asks for action, transparency and accountability. The publication of publicly funded reports should be forthcoming shortly. A clear and funded response to the recommendations and clarity on the Executive Office's position on the recommendation for an independent public inquiry are all essential if trust is to be rebuilt. Before I finish, I want to address the People Before Profit amendment, which seeks to ensure that religious and other institutions take proactive steps to preserve relevant records as a matter of basic responsibility. Records matter for accountability, for truth and for survivors who may one day seek answers. They will rely on records for those. We will certainly support Mr Carroll's amendment, and I thank him for tabling it. The Assembly has a responsibility to ensure that the work that it commissions leads to meaningful outcomes. Supporting the motion is about meeting that responsibility. For victims and survivors, it is about finally being listened to and heard. For that reason, I urge Members to support our motion.

1,450 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:21 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.

Challenge this classification