On 10 of November 2000 the first meeting was held between officials of my Department, the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General and representatives of the religious congregations. At that meeting the representatives for the religious congregations indicated their willingness to make a meaningful contribution to the residential institutions redress scheme.
A series of meetings followed between November 2000 and June 2001. These meetings were attended by representatives of the congregations, officials of the Department of Finance, the Attorney General's office and officials of my Department. In the course of these discussions the religious congregations raised the question of an indemnity as part of an agreement to contribute to the redress scheme. A document drafted by Arthur Cox Solicitors on behalf of CORI was not accepted by the State at that stage.
Subsequent to the discussions at official level terminating in October 2001, the former Minister for Education and Science attended further meetings with the congregations on 7 November 2001 and 7 January 2002. The outcome of these meetings was a substantially better offer than the one made prior to the termination of discussions with officials in 2001. The then Minister brought these proposals to Cabinet.
On 30 January 2002 the Government agreed in principle to all the key elements of the indemnity agreement. From January to late May 2002 a series of meetings were held at official level with the congregations and their legal advisers to finalise details of the agreement. The Arthur Cox document was used as a starting point but was substantially revised to accommodate the requirements of the State side.
The Office of the Attorney General was fully involved at all appropriate times during the course of these negotiations and his office prepared comprehensive advice for the Government prior to the decision being taken to sign the agreement. I am satisfied that the indemnity agreement contains all the essential points of a legally binding contract. There is no provision for renegotiation in the indemnity agreement and there are therefore no plans to review it.
Additional informationI assure the Deputy that all legal considerations which ought to have been considered were considered during the negotiation period and again during the final drafting of the indemnity. Certain background papers relating to the indemnity agreement were provided by my Department under freedom of information requests. Access to certain documentation was refused. This refusal has been appealed and the matter is now being considered within my Department under the internal review provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This review will be concluded shortly.
I would add however that some of the papers to which access has been refused under the Freedom of Information Act relate to property aspects of the agreement. This matter is still being considered by officials in my Department and is the subject of ongoing negotiations with the legal representatives of CORI. I am aware that the freedom of information legislation provides that access to requested documentation can be refused where the matter is the subject of such ongoing negotiations. However when the negotiations on the property issues have been concluded and the schedules of property have been agreed, they will be made available.
