I want to return to the deal between the congregations of religious and the State in respect of child abuse. The Taoiseach dodged the pertinent questions yesterday. He told me on 29 January that the information was in the Library, but most of the information is not there. It is generally accepted that the agreement is a bad one for the taxpayer and a good one for the religious congregations.

The net point on which I want to focus is the indemnity which exposes the taxpayer to what the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, thought last night would be €500 million, but which the Progressive Democrats say is many times more than that figure.

I draw the attention of the Taoiseach to the speech of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, last night. He said:

Subsequent to the discussions at official level terminating in October 2001, I understand that the then Minister for Education and Science had further contact with the religious congregations as a result of which he informed Government on 30 January 2002 that he had reached agreement in principle on the amount of the contribution and on an indemnity.

If the official discussions had terminated in October, who authorised the Minister for Education and Science to reopen discussions and conclude an indemnity? Was the then Attorney General, Deputy McDowell, at his desk when the agreement was signed off by Government in the dog days of the interregnum and two days before the new Government took office and the former Minister, Deputy Woods, went out of office? Was the Attorney General involved?

The Attorney General was up poles.

Was the Attorney General going up poles about a project that he condemned in extravagant language, namely, the Bertie Bowl, because of the exposure of taxpayers to its cost, whereas a project for which he had direct responsibility and that cost the taxpayer much more was being apparently signed off—

The Deputy should conclude.

–with or without his knowledge? Will the Taoiseach address the question of the involvement of the Department of Finance and of the Attorney General? Were they given the opportunity—

Deputy Rabbitte should resume his seat.

–to comment on the extent of the State's exposure?

Deputy Rabbitte has asked me a question about the legal indemnity and I will answer it, but I wish to repeat what I stated yesterday. When I made the statement on behalf of the Government on 14 May 1999, I said that the Government's approach to this issue was to do the best for the victims in terms of redressing the wrong done to them. That was our purpose at all times and all the decisions we made along the way were to try to address an issue that had been ongoing for many decades and in which people had suffered abuse and received no compensation, redress or apology. That was what was involved.

As regards the legal indemnity which Deputy Rabbitte queried, it was given to the congregations and covers only those cases that could be heard by the redress board but where the victim has opted instead for the court hearing. Cases must be commenced within six years of the date of the indemnity, which was June 2002. I put that date on the record yesterday. The Department of Education and Science is of the view that the overwhelming majority of cases will go to the redress board rather than the courts. In the event that a congregation decides to contest a court case, the case falls outside the indemnity and the costs will fall to be met in accordance with the court's decisions.

The details of the legal indemnity took several months of discussions between lawyers representing the congregations and officials of the Department of Education and Science and of the Attorney General's Office. Discussions on this matter continued from early 2001 to October 2001. They broke down at that stage. As the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, said last night, officials of the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's Office were involved up to October 2001. The discussions then broke down.

The former Minister, Deputy Woods, on behalf of the Cabinet, continued to try to get the discussions back on track. The meetings did not pick up again until March 2002 and, at that stage, the Department of Education and Science had its own legal representative working with Mr. Cox's office, which represented CORI, and the discussions continued.

When it came to the final stage, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's Office were involved. Again it was done properly. It was driven by the then Minister for Education and Science because the institutions were his responsibility. We were trying to deal with enormous problems caused when the State asked religious institutions to care for children, a limited number of whom were, unfortunately, abused. That is why the State has an obligation to try to resolve the matter.

The Taoiseach answered many questions I did not ask. We are all in favour of early awards to the victims and acknowledge that the religious institutions have finite resources.

It is not true for the Taoiseach to say that discussions resumed in March 2002. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, told the House last night that the then Minister, Deputy Woods, informed Government on 30 January 2002 that he had reached agreement in principle on the amount of a contribution and on an indemnity. Why was the State so exposed?

Did the memorandum that went to Government include the usual observation of Cabinet procedures, namely, advice from the Department of Finance and the Attorney General? Those are the net questions.

I could ask where were the apostles of fiscal rectitude, the Ministers, Deputies Harney and McCreevy? How did they allow the State to be so exposed? Why was it not allocated on the basis of a percentage liability, whatever that may be, such as 50% each to the State and Church? Whatever would happen, the liability would be 50:50. Instead there is a cap on the liability of the religious congregations of about €40 million. For some reason land valued at about €40 million that had been transferred to the State way in advance of this and is not concerned with restitution has also been included. I do not understand why that was included. Was the Attorney General involved?

The memorandum brought to Government in June 2002 was a Government memorandum and was dealt with in the proper way. As I stated, these discussions continued for a long time. There was no rushed deal. The negotiations with CORI on the extent of the contribution had commenced at the end of 2000 and concluded in early 2002. The drafting of the legal documents took time.

The view of the agreement with CORI was that a contribution had to be meaningful but should not be so high as to destabilise the congregations and the schools to which they still make a huge contribution. We were not operating on the basis that the congregation should pay everything and that we would bankrupt them.

We should remember what happened. The State through the decades put pressure on these congregations to accept children into their care. As a result, the State has an obligation when things go wrong to try to assist them.

The agreement with the congregations is €41 million in cash, €77 million in property transfers and €10 million in counselling. The State can refuse to accept any property offered and seek alternative purposes when it relates to land.