Debate contribution: Clerical Child Abuse
Debate contribution by Mrs Linda Dillon on .
- MLA
- Mrs Linda Dillon
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Clerical Child Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5345114
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First and foremost, our thoughts are with all victims and survivors of clerical abuse. That abuse was a profound betrayal, and, for many, the harm was compounded by silence, denial and institutional failure over many years. Those responsible occupied positions of authority and trust and used that power to shield themselves from scrutiny. We see so often that abusers are people in a position of trust. That is how they get access to those whom they abuse. The motion is not about institutions protecting their reputation but about people. It is about victims and survivors whose lives were fundamentally altered and who have shown extraordinary courage in coming forward. Their voices must lead the way on how truth is acknowledged, accountability pursued and meaningful change delivered. I pay tribute to the survivors' reference group, which Paula and others have acknowledged, and to all those who have campaigned to raise awareness of abuse in faith-based settings. Many have shared deeply personal and painful experiences so that others would be believed and so that the scale of harm could no longer be ignored. That courage places a responsibility on all of us in the Chamber to listen carefully and act responsibly. There is concern that the research findings and recommendations on clerical abuse have not yet been made public. Survivors rightly seek transparency and clarity. At the same time, it is essential that we get this right. The proposer of the motion said that it is not about haste but about getting it right, and I appreciate that. Engagement and communication must be prioritised, and I acknowledge that it must be continuous and respectful and must be shaped by lived experience. It cannot be limited or sporadic. Any next steps must be taken carefully, ethically and with the well-being of survivors to the fore. Survivors should never feel that decisions are being made without them. They should be confident that we in the House and those making the decisions want those decisions to be developed thoroughly, responsibly and in a way that will stand the test of time. Access to records, as outlined in the amendment, is a central issue for many victims and survivors. I absolutely support the amendment. We have learnt from previous processes that truth and accountability depend on the preservation, proper storage and disclosure of the records held by many institutions. There should be no circumstances in which a religious order destroys records. Religious and other organisations should take proactive steps now to ensure that relevant records are not only not destroyed but protected and made accessible to those seeking information about their experiences. No institution should be allowed to destroy or conceal material that could assist survivors. Unfortunately, as has been seen recently across different denominations, it is not simply a historical issue. For many, it is a live and ongoing reality. Full and open disclosure should be considered to be the minimum standard for institutions seeking to demonstrate that they take their responsibilities seriously. It is also essential that allegations of abuse continue to be investigated thoroughly and sensitively and that victims and survivors who wish to pursue justice through the courts be supported in doing so in a compassionate and trauma-informed way, including by the police. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. Victims and survivors should be supported through the process in whatever way is required. Finally, while addressing the legacy of clerical abuse, it is vital that we ensure that the conditions that allowed such abuse to occur are never repeated. I have some concerns in that regard. We still hear the narrative about abusers being strange people whom we cannot trust, yet people say of abusers, "He's a nice guy", "He's a lovely guy", "I know him", "He's my brother" or, "He's my friend". Abusers are charmers. They are nice people. That is how they get access to children, young people and vulnerable adults. We need to ensure that the narrative changes so that everyone understands that the abusers are among us. They are people whom we know and, sometimes, love. We need to stop talking about them as though they are strange beings from another place: they are not. Victims and survivors have shown leadership through their resilience and determination. Our responsibility is to ensure that their voices remain at the centre of this work —
— that the truth is not delayed or denied and that they and all abused victims are believed.
747 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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| 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) | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.