Two days before the last Government left office, an indemnity was signed by the State, the all-embracing nature of which had not previously been seen. In the Sunday Independent last Sunday a story was run under the headline: “PDs say taxpayers will face €2bn abuse bill”. This is the response of a party in the Government. The State settled, nominally, for €128 million from the religious congregations but the minor party in Government says the cost will be €2 billion. I refer the Taoiseach to the clause quoted in the report from a memorandum to the finance committee. It states:

The initial negotiations with the religious institutions were conducted by a group consisting of officials from the Departments of Education and Science (Chair), Finance and the Office of the Attorney General; however, the final negotiations and agreement in principle were concluded by the then Minister for Education and Science, Michael Woods.

Why does that communication to the finance committee seem to draw a distinction between the process of negotiations that involved the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office and the deed that was negotiated by a Minister who was due to lose office in two days? Why did it happen in that fashion?

If the Taoiseach says he will not publish the advice of the Attorney General, will he tell the House that the Attorney General was involved? Why would the Progressive Democrats claim that it will cost €2 billion, since they are partly responsible? Are they saying that the Attorney General, while shimmying up lampposts, could not apply his mind to a deal that provides for the greatest exposure in the history of the State? Everybody wants the victims to get their compensation as speedily as possible, but can the Taoiseach reassure the House that a memorandum was brought to Cabinet, the Attorney General advised on it and that these terms were approved?

I can do so. These matters were discussed by the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office. The discussions continued over a long period. There was no rush deal in the last days of the previous Administration. The negotiations with CORI and the 18 religious congregations on the extent of the contribution began at the end of 2000 and concluded in the beginning of 2002. The drafting of the legal documents took time to complete and the matter was brought to Government on 5 June and made public that day.

The Government's approach on this issue was to see what was best for the victims in terms of redressing the wrong that was done to them. There was a clear view that many of their cases would not succeed in the courts because of the passage of time and the unavailability of witnesses. That led to the proposal of a scheme of redress based on medical evidence. The agreement with the organisations was that there would be €41 million cash. A total of €27 million has been lodged and a further €7 million is due this week. There would be €77 million in property transfers and the State can refuse any property offered and seek alternative proposals. That puts the State in a strong position. There was a further €10 million for counselling victims, with a commitment to continue the service over time.

The view of the agreement with CORI was that the contribution had to be meaningful but could not be so high as to destabilise the congregations, who do not have a bottomless pit of resources. The House will also remember that these congregations looked after the people in their care on behalf of the State. If there were deficiencies and problems, they were partially, and perhaps fully, the obligation of the State. Everything was done in an orderly fashion. Now, however, there are more cases than anybody expected. I well remember the day I made the apology on behalf of the State. I was told that day there would be no cases because it had nothing to do with financial redress but required an apology. However, that is how these things develop.

The Taoiseach has rambled far and wide. I already have that information. I am asking about the indemnity deed, not the agreement. I am not asking what matters were discussed with the Department of Finance and the Attorney General. I am asking if the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office were involved in respect of the indemnity deed. A reply to a parliamentary question on 19 February 2002 gives the terms of the agreement but makes no reference to the fact that there is a global indemnity. It is so wide that it applies not just to putative cases that might be coming down the track but to anything that might have been forgotten and that cannot be thought about. The State has indemnified the congregations in those circumstances. I ask the Taoiseach, with the full consciousness of what he is doing, to tell the House whether a memorandum went to Cabinet, whether the Attorney General advised on the deed of indemnity and whether the Government approved it in the knowledge that the exposure of the State could be anything from a factor of five to, if you take the Progressive Democrats' position, a factor of 15-plus. I am puzzled as to why the Progressive Democrats would want to go public in disowning this if their own Attorney General was the central figure in approving it.

To the best of my recollection, all of the people I have mentioned were involved. The indemnity deal, which I presume was the final legal document which was completed, was obviously discussed and dealt with in the legal section – it would not have been dealt with by a Minister. In terms of exposure, it was never clear what the figure would be. Various figures were mentioned over the past number of years, and they are still being mentioned. At one stage the figure was to be quite small, as I said, but then it went up by a sum in the region of €100 million each time. I do not know what the ultimate figure will be, but as far as the arrangements, negotiations and the legal indemnity are concerned, I am certain these matters were always brought to Cabinet.