Fianna Fail has refused to support the Green party’s claim that Catholic church authorities have a moral responsibility to revisit the €128m compensation deal for victims of child abuse agreed with the government in 2002. Eamon O’Cuiv yesterday defended the controversial indemnity agreement with the religious orders as “motivated by one objective alone . . . making sure that survivors received compensation as quickly as possible and without being forced to go to court”.
The minister for community, rural and Gaeltacht affairs also attacked the two main opposition leaders, Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore, for their persistent calls on the government to revisit the deal.
“The sight of opposition leaders trying to score party political points on the back of the unfortunate abuse victims is nothing short of sickening,” he said.
“The abuse indemnity agreement was motivated by one objective alone — making sure that survivors received compensation as quickly as possible and without being forced to go to court.”
A spokesman for Batt O’Keeffe, the education minister, said it was “entirely up to the religious orders” to decide on their next move.
He refused to say whether O’Keeffe agreed with the statement from John Gormley, the Green party leader, that the religious orders were morally bound to make a greater contribution to the redress scheme.
“The deal has been agreed, and it’s a matter for the church now,” he said. “It’s not for us to say either way what they should do. It is the church’s prerogative at this stage.”
The education minister’s spokesman said it was important to remember the church was doing good work in Ireland.
“I think the point to make is the church is continuing to contribute to Irish society through education and health projects around the country,” he said. “They now should be given time and space to reflect on the report and examine the detail. The minister has received legal advice that he cannot change the deal, and he has no powers to coerce the church into making any further contributions. He cannot tell them what to do.”
The taoiseach, too, refused to say whether he agreed that the church had a moral responsibility in the matter.
“The taoiseach won’t comment on that aspect of it,” said a spokesman. “The cabinet meeting next week will look at the definitive legal advice on the matter.”
A spokeswomen for Barry Andrews, the children’s minister, said he had no comment to make on the matter.
On Friday, Gormley voiced concern about the proportionality of the deal made with the church and said there was an “overwhelming” case for the religious orders to make a larger contribution.
Yesterday, Dan Boyle, the Green senator, said there was a strong moral responsibility on the church authorities, especially as it appeared unlikely that a legal challenge could be brought against them.
“During my tenure on the Dail’s public accounts committee I looked at the deal and it seems fairly watertight,” he said. “I think there is a very strong moral onus for them to revisit the deal. Particularly, I think we need to look at the property element, as the value of the property transferred has declined so dramatically.”
The Sunday Times has learnt that Michael McDowell, who was attorney-general in 2002 when the deal was agreed, was excluded from negotiations after he highlighted the potential hazards and legal issues surrounding the transfer of property and land owned by religious orders into state control.
The disclosure contradicts statements by Michael Woods, the former education minister, who insists McDowell was aware of the deal at all stages of negotiation.
Sources close to McDowell, the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, insist he was excluded from the negotiations at an early stage because of the issues he raised.
“The transfer of lands and property from religious orders into state control presented various issues for the state and religious orders,” said a political source.
McDowell advised the government it was liable for compensation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Source (TTOUK)
SV (3)