Debate contribution: Clerical Child Abuse

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 27 January 2026.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

27 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Clerical Child Abuse

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5345129

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the motion and pay tribute to every victim and survivor who has come forward to share their experiences of abuse in faith-based settings. Survivors are incredibly strong and courageous, not only for speaking to someone, often for the first time in their lives, about what they have suffered but for continuing to push for accountability for others as well. Let us be clear that justice matters not only for those who have gone public but for those who have never told a soul and who remain too traumatised to speak about what they endured. When survivors are listened to, respected and believed, that sends a really strong message to our society that it is prepared to confront uncomfortable truths rather than bury them. Honestly, it is shameful — I find it difficult to understand — that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister appear to have had so little meaningful engagement with victims and survivors since the independent reports were submitted in July 2025. The reports were commissioned by and delivered to the Executive Office, yet we have seen far too little transparency, far too little urgency and far too little respect for the very people who have already waited far too long. I understand — I will say this carefully — that, given the sensitivity of the issue, it is right that careful consideration be given, but that cannot be an excuse for delay, it cannot mean silence, and it certainly cannot mean survivors being left in the dark once again, wondering whether the system will fail them yet another time. The motion is not only about justice for those who have experienced abuse; it is about ensuring that it is never repeated on such an industrial scale. That means action. It means having safeguards that are real, enforceable and effective. It means ensuring that warnings are not missed and investigations are not avoided or brushed aside and that the systems that are meant to protect children do exactly that. It means having robust procedures, proper record-keeping and a culture of accountability, where the protection of children is always at the heart of decision-making. As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I have sat through countless hours of evidence-gathering on institutional abuse, including at the Magdalene laundries. Listening to those testimonies is not something that you forget. I have heard first-hand about the devastating impact that abuse has had on families, not only on individuals but across generations, because trauma does not end when childhood ends. It shapes lives, relationships and well-being for decades, and it can be carried through families long after the abuse itself. For many survivors, what they are asking for is not complicated: they want to know that they are being listened to; they want assurance that their experiences are being treated seriously; and they want to see that someone in the system is prepared to fight for accountability on their behalf. That is why I support the amendment from Mr Carroll. We also have to be honest about where responsibility lies. I have engaged over many years with many victims, predominantly, but not exclusively, from the Catholic Church. As with other powerful institutions, it has often sought to cover up abuse and paedophiles within its ranks, denying survivors the truth to protect the Church's reputation, rather than the children's, and that must end. There can be no special status, no deference and no closed doors when it comes to child protection. Full cooperation with investigations and oversight must be the absolute minimum. Religious institutions must be held accountable. They must not be allowed to avoid scrutiny, and they must not be placed above the law, the truth or the rights of the victims and survivors. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge one fundamental point: we cannot engage constructively on the best way forward unless we know what those reports contain. We cannot shape a response, test whether it is adequate or measure whether it is properly resourced —

— and we cannot build public confidence and trust. They must be published, and it must be addressed.

Will the Member take an intervention?

It is shameful that those reports have sat since July 2025, because we are hurting the victims. The longer that those reports sit and are not published, the more that it hurts victims. I feel ashamed that that has happened.

737 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