Religious congregations were tough in their negotiations with the State on a redress scheme for abuse victims,
On October 4th, 2000, Sister Elizabeth Maxwell, then secretary general of the Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI), indicated religious congregations' willingness to Government to be involved in a State compensation scheme for victims of abuse in residential institutions. She was responding to an announcement the previous day by then Minister for Education, Dr Michael Woods, that the Government was setting up such a scheme.
Sister Maxwell recognised the scheme as "one further healing initiative" for the victims.
The congregations' talks with Government officials began on November 10th, 2000, when they agreed in principle to be part of such a scheme. Details of the talks were described in documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
At a meeting on February 7th, 2001, they expressed concern at the contribution which would be sought of them and at "the process for validating claims of abuse which will require a low burden of proof". A lower burden of proof should mean a lower contribution, they felt.
And they sought a State indemnity "against all further liability" in return. It was the first time the notion of an indemnity was raised. At a meeting on March 22nd, 2001, they considered an indemnity very important, as any other system "would leave them facing financial uncertainty for years to come". By April 4th, 2001, an indemnity was "critical".
An internal Government memo dated "April 2001" noted the congregations would make "a worthwhile contribution" given a full indemnity. They also would "require that any presentation of their participation should be carefully prepared so as to reflect their participation as a desire to assist any person who may have suffered damage while under their care, rather than simply as a compensation scheme", it said.
And the amount of their contribution would be a "function of the congregations' estimate of their present liability should all the abuse cases be heard before the Courts" and of "some savings in legal costs by processing cases through a compensation scheme rather than the courts (at circa 20 per cent of an award this should in itself be a substantial sum)".
The amount would also be a function of "the value to the congregations in being seen to move in a pro-active manner, with the State, to bring closure to a particularly difficult period of their history".
On April 30th, 2001, the congregations told officials that indications of "the 50:50 ratio of contribution expected by the Departments were far beyond what they envisaged happening". Their contribution should reflect "the fact that it was the State that had decided to proceed with this form of redress; that the State had decided to set the level of validation lower than that of the Courts; (and) their own (congregations') assessment of their own liability in a Court situation".
Their own expected contribution was "very dissimilar to that of the Department". They wondered, given the distance between both sides, if there was any point in further discussion. Department officials "expressed some surprise at this attitude".
On June 26th, 2001, the congregations made their "only and final offer" and if not accepted would "end the negotiations". It amounted to £45 million, £20 million of which would be cash, payable over five years.
As Department of Education official Mr Tom Boland wrote in a June 27th, 2001, memo to his secretary general, Mr John Dennehy, the congregations argued their offer exceeded "by a considerable margin what they reckon their exposure in litigation to be".
Also, they claimed the scheme as devised by Government would "in itself increase the number of claims, claims that they would otherwise never have had to meet".
In a letter to Dr Woods on June 29th, 2001, the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, described the congregations' offer as "quite disappointing and far short of what I would consider a meaningful contribution.
"When contrasted with a possible cost to the State of the order of £200-£400 million the amount on offer - which I understand was presented as a final offer - seems to me a very small price to pay for protection from litigation for the congregations in respect of these claims at the expense of the taxpayer."
He felt the offer "effectively leaves the State to bear virtually the full cost of the Redress Scheme".
In a letter dated November 6th, 2001, the Department of Education's assistant secretary general, Mr Paul Kelly, told Sister Elizabeth Maxwell, secretary general of CORI, that the offer amounted to "a very small proportion of what the cost of the scheme is likely to be".
The Minister, he said, felt it unlikely the Government would accept it and, rather than risk formal rejection and a possible breakdown in negotiation, he decided not to bring it to Government to allow parties further time to reflect. Mr Kelly urged further dialogue.
Correspondence between the congregations and the Department of Education on January 4th and 14th, 2002, was not released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The next documents released were copies of Government and the congregations' press releases for January 30th, 2002, announcing the current deal under which the religious would contribute a total €128 million (£100 million) to the scheme. In its press release, the Government said it would indemnify the congregations against all claims in return for their contribution.
In their press release, the congregations announced "a substantial contribution" which would offer "educational support, counselling and financial assistance to former residents".
They could "never take away the pain experienced at the time by those children, nor the shadow left over their adult lives", it said, before detailing how the €128 million contribution was made up.
Nowhere is it stated that, in return for their contribution, the State would indemnify the congregations against all claims. In fact, there is no mention of indemnity in their press release at all.
The deal was signed on June 5th, 2002.