Controversy over the Government's €128 million compensation agreement with religious orders is not new, writes Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent.
Under their controversial deal with the State - announced on January 30th, 2002, and signed by both parties on June 5th, 2002 - 18 religious orders agreed to pay a total €128 million, in cash and property, to the State Redress Scheme for people who suffered abuse while in residential institutions run by them.
In return, the Government agreed to indemnify the orders against claims arising from child abuse. It meant that victims who accepted compensation under the scheme forfeited a right to sue the orders separately.
The indemnity deal applies only to the religious orders concerned and to those abused as children in institutions run by them. It does not apply to those abused as children by priests in parishes. Compensation in such cases is a matter for the local diocese.
The deal has been controversial since details were first released on January 30th, 2002. Controversy too surrounded the negotiations preceding it. They began in November 2000 and were expected to end within three months. Officials on the Government side, which at various stages included civil servants from the Departments of Education; Justice, Equality and Law Reform; and Finance, were not happy with what the religious orders were offering.
For their part, the religious orders were deeply concerned at the proposed low threshold in the validation process during which allegations against members would be examined. They felt the good name of innocent people could be damaged.
Even in January of last year, there was hardly unanimity where the final outcome was concerned.
In particular, Department of Finance officials were said to be very dissatisfied with the amount being contributed by the religious orders, while other civil servants thought it "magnanimous".
During the negotiations, an expert group reported to the then Minister for Education and Science, Dr Michael Woods, estimating that compensation to victims under the scheme could be €500 million. It calculated that the (then) estimated 3,500 victims could get between €50,000 and €300,000, depending on severity of abuse.
It also proposed the Redress Board should make awards for loss of opportunity suffered by those sent to religious-run institutions. It was felt this could greatly increase the State's liability.
Opposition politicians were immediately critical of the deal, as were representatives of abuse victims. "The religious orders should be seen to pay an amount which is commensurate with their culpability and with their capacity to pay," said Fine Gael TD Mr Michael Creed.
Ms Christine Buckley of the Aislinn victims group said on RTÉ radio that the money offered was "a pittance" and should be increased to three-fifths of the likely total fund from its current one-fifth.
Mr John Kelly of Irish SOCA said he was extremely disappointed at the amount, which he felt was " a paltry sum".
The deal was approved by the Government. On June 5th, 2002, it was signed by Dr Woods, an assistant secretary in the Department of Finance on behalf of Mr McCreevy, and by representatives of the religious orders involved.
In a Dáil adjournment debate on June 20th, Ms Róisín Shortall of Labour said taxpayers had been "ripped off" by the deal. It would result "in a huge bill . . . a bill that could eventually reach €1 billion".
The orders "whose members are guilty of the abuse . . . would pay about a quarter of the estimated cost of the compensation awards". She also strongly objected to the indemnity granted by the State to the orders.
A Government-written reply said the scheme was set up without regard to whether the religious orders would be involved and against a background of more than 1,000 cases pending in the High Court. The indemnity would apply in "relatively few cases" and it was "misleading" to say the deal had implications for the taxpayer, it said.