I want to come back to the leg acy the Government has left to the over-burdened taxpayer as a result of the deal with the religious congregations. It diminishes this House that one got more answers in the weekend newspapers than I did in pursuing this matter last week with the Taoiseach. I ask the Taoiseach now to skip the bit about his apology, which we welcomed, and to accept that everyone wants to see the victims get the speediest possible awards.

Did the Taoiseach ever discuss this matter with Cardinal Connell? Is it true that the deed of indemnity that protected religious congregations and gave unlimited exposure to the taxpayer was drafted in Arthur Cox's office on behalf of the religious congregations? Was the agreement based on figures that were grossly out of date – between 900 and 2,000 victims? Is it true that when the deed was signed in June the Department of Education and Science had 3,000 claimants on its files and that there are now 5,000 victims? Is it true that the estimated figure of those alive who spent time in those institutions is between 20,000 and 30,000?

Who authorised or directed the intervention of the Minister for Education and Science at the time, Deputy Woods? Who advised the Minister? I draw the Taoiseach's attention to a document of 14 January 2003 to the finance committee where the official stated that the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Finance were involved in the negotiations but "however, the final agreement was negotiated by the Minister for Education and subsequently endorsed by the Government". Who accompanied the Minister for Education and Science? I accept that I was wrong last week when I said that he did it two days before he left office – he did it the day before he went out of office.

Why did the secretary to the finance committee feel obliged, the same day, to redo a revised note that changes the meaning of that separate involvement of the Minister for Education and Science, leaving it open to many interpretations? How can the Taoiseach justify leaving the taxpayer with unlimited exposure as a result of a secret deal that never came before the House and in respect of which he refused to answer questions last week?

I answered questions on this last week and on several other occasions. I never had discussions with Cardinal Connell or any other religious person on this matter. I was at none of the discussions whatsoever, contrary to the impression Deputy Rabbitte gave on the "Today with Pat Kenny" programme this morning.

There seems to be confusion over the agreement reached with the religious congregations. That agreement gives indemnity to a number of religious orders that ran institutions which the State entrusted with functions that perhaps it should have carried out itself. There is no agreement with the Catholic Church as some people are endeavouring to make out. There is no deal with it and there is no agreement giving it indemnity.

Despite Deputy Rabbitte's difficulty with my raising the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, I will explain again. It is about providing financial compensation to people who suffered abuse in residential institutions. These were institutions which the State entrusted with functions that the State should, perhaps, have carried out itself. The agreement concluded between the State and the religious congregations was about ensuring that the religious made a meaningful contribution to the State's redress scheme. I use this opportunity to reject the bogus claim that this agreement was a rushed or secret deal pushed through in the last days of the previous Government. The Deputy's office is well aware that nothing is further from the truth. The negotiations with CORI on the extent of the contribution began at the end of 2000, contrary to the misleading opinion some people seek to generate. The House and the public were kept well abreast of developments.

As far back as 22 November 2000, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, issued a comprehensive statement saying that the religious congregations agreed in principle to participate in a child abuse compensation scheme. In the period since then the Department issued statements on at least three occasions detailing progress of the agreement with the religious congregations on contributions to the redress scheme. This can hardly be described as secretive behaviour. I excuse Deputies for not having the time to log into the Department's website to read the statements there.

I remind Deputies that the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2002, which is central to the agreement with the religious orders, came before the Oireachtas not less than 16 times over five readings in the House and four readings in the Seanad. As well as the opportunities presented by open debate on the Bill, I and Ministers have answered numerous questions on the issue. The agreement with the religious orders came before the Oireachtas no less than 16 times over five readings in this House and four readings in the Seanad. As well as the opportunities presented by the debate on the Bill for open discussion on the proposed agreement, both myself and Ministers have answered numerous questions on this. I looked at one or two debates from the Official Report at the weekend in which Deputy Bruton and the former Deputy Shatter received replies from the Minister in regard to provisions of compensation; that is not a secret agreement. On 20 June last year Deputy Shortall raised the agreement on the Adjournment and Deputy Bruton did so last week. Last week when Deputy Rabbitte was looking for the agreement I did not know that Deputy Shortall was given an assurance that the Official Report had been put in the Oireachtas Library last June.

Throughout 2001 officials in the Departments of Finance and Education and Science, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, had at least ten meetings with representatives of CORI. All of these are documented, all of them are on Department files. I was not aware of those matters last week, but they are all on record.

A point was reached based on what was thought to be the maximum numbers.

The time has concluded.

There was no exact, scientific formula for reaching a figure for the contributions of the congregations, but there were guiding considerations. The State was looking for a voluntary contribution as it could not compel the congregations to pay and it did not want to put such a burden on them that they would be driven out of business. The Department of Finance had suggested that it should be on a 50:50 basis, according to the figures then available, which was the approach taken.

The redress board was designed to facilitate victims. As we all know, it requires a much lower standard of proof than is the case with the courts. The religious congregations were quite happy to go into the courts on a case by case basis; it was the Government that was not happy with this arrangement.

In May 1999, I was the one who had concerns about it. I was the one who was not prepared to go on saying to these people that the State did not give two damns about them. I made the apology. We made the system easy so that these people could get their money rather than having to go in and fight the State on cases that were 30 years old. I do not make any apology for what the last Government or this one did to help these people. I am afraid that Deputy Rabbitte is wrong in this case.

The Taoiseach obviously had notice because his servants on the payroll of the State were listening to the "Today with Pat Kenny" radio show. Is that the best the Taoiseach can do? The only document in the Oireachtas Library is one that refers to the redress scheme. The four folders which are referred to in it were not in the Library up to this morning.

The Taoiseach avoided all of my questions. There is no point dragging in red herrings about the Catholic Church. I never referred to the Catholic Church but was careful to refer to the religious congregations. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is advising the Taoiseach. Will he advise him as to whether he was involved in this indemnity? If there is anything the Taoiseach does not understand about this question, will he please ask me about it? Was Deputy McDowell, in his then role of Attorney General, involved in drafting the most open-ended indemnity in the history of the State? Is that not a clear question? If he was then how did it get past him and if he was not, then why not?

How many cases are contained in the four folders? There was 3,000 at the time of signing, although a deal was done on completely out of date numbers. Is it true that there are now 5,000? Who accompanied the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods? Who directed that he should become involved? Did the Taoiseach's colleagues know when they authorised – the Minister for Health and Children appears to find this very funny.

It is not.

We are running out of time, Deputy. Your minute is concluded.

People may say a lot of things about Deputy Woods but they never accused him of making decisions he did not have to make.

It is a ridiculous notion that a Minister has to be accompanied everywhere.

Why did he—

Sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, your minute is concluded. Minister, this is Leaders' Questions.

Who authorised Deputy Wood's intervention in his capacity as Minister for Education and Science? Why did he do so, according to the Taoiseach last week, on the advice of a legal expert in Education and Science? Was there no confidence in the Attorney General's office by those in Marlborough Street? Was an indemnity concluded in this matter without the endorsement of the Attorney General's office? Was the Department of Finance involved in the calculation? What happened to the Minister for Finance's 50:50 apportionment?

Deputy Rabbitte, you have gone over your entitlement by two minutes at this stage.

The Taoiseach went well over three minutes. I am still waiting for simple straightforward answers. I do not want any more crocodile tears about the Taoiseach's apology and about the victims. We all feel sorry for the victims; we all believe they should get their money – and now. The question is, how is the taxpayer left with this situation? Is there anything that the Government can handle that does not cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euros?

Will the Deputy allow the Taoiseach to respond.

This costs more than the project on which Deputy McDowell made his name, that is, opposing the Taoiseach on Abbotstown.

Perhaps Deputy Rabbitte does not want any more of my crocodile tears but if he had as much pity when he was at the Cabinet table when this issue first came up—

Answer the question.

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

He did absolutely nothing about it. The issue was there right through the 1994-97 period. Deputy Rabbitte asked me a question in relation to the legal indemnity—

Was the Attorney General involved?

Sorry, Deputy Ryan, it is Leaders' Questions. You are not the leader of your party.

If the party leader will allow me to reply. He does not need any help from Deputy Ryan. The Attorney General and his office was involved throughout the entire period. All of the issues of the indemnity came fully in front of the Government. Deputy Woods who was then the Minister for Education and Science dealt with the issues on the authority of the Government. All of the Departments were involved in most of the discussions. When Deputy Woods and his Secretary General and one of his officials dealt with the meetings they did not need anybody holding their hands. He did as any Minister would.

What does that mean?

It means that when a Minister goes to negotiate he does not need three more Ministers with him. He does it by himself. We trust out colleagues.

He was not a Minister, he was the Attorney General.

Deputy Rabbitte, please allow the Taoiseach.

The institutions were under his jurisdiction.

Deputy Rabbitte, please resume your seat.

Publish.

I will not publish documents relating—

Resume your seat, please, Deputy Rabbitte.

Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to obey the Chair or the Chair will have to take appropriate action.

All the matters were fully dealt with. If in the end there were more cases than we thought they will all come out in the tribunal eventually. They are all in the tribunal.

Publish now.

In our view, the State created, or helped to create, a particular problem and the State has to play its part in paying for it. At the time the decision was made the congregations involved were paying a fair contribution. The name of the game was not to put the congregations out of order but to try to find a quick way of getting redress for the individuals concerned rather than having to put each of them through an individual court case. Like all of these things the records will show beyond all doubt that everything was dealt with properly.

When is the Taoiseach going to answer the question?