Will the Taoiseach confirm that according to the Department of Education and Science, 5,000 claims for compensation have been made under the redress scheme? Given that the Government assessed a likely expectation of 2,000 claims at a cost of €500 million, if there are now 5,000 claims, the cost will be in excess of at least €1 billion. Does the Taoiseach think it is proportionate that taxpayers should be responsible for €1 billion, or more, and the religious institutions for €27.4 million? Did the Attorney General give approval for land properties assets in trust for a particular purpose being transferred to the State for this purpose? Did the Taoiseach have an audit done of the properties and assets of the religious congregations? Will he confirm that the wider deed of indemnity, which was never advised to this House or debated on any record available of this House, was drafted in the office of Arthur Cox for CORI? Is he saying the office of the Attorney General was involved in the final negotiations and conclusion of the indemnity? If not, is he saying the Attorney General nonetheless approved the wider indemnity for sanction for Cabinet? Were the agreement and deed signed before or after the Government meeting that endorsed it? Will he publish and make available the 150 or so documents held by the Department of Education and Science relating to the deal, even at this late stage?

The Taoiseach has three minutes.

To answer 20 questions?

To answer one question.

I will do my best in three minutes. On the question relating to the basis for the figures, it is estimated that it could be in the region of 3,000 to 5,000 cases. We do not know exactly how many people will lodge claims. We anticipate that it will be in the region of 3,000 but it could increase to 5,000. People are talking about higher figures but we do not think that in monetary terms it will reach anything like €1 billion. We still think the original estimate will not be too far out, but it depends on the nature of the large claims. Some of these cases are very serious.

The indemnity was worked out in February. On 20 February the Minister made a statement. All those involved, including the Departments of Education and Science and Finance, and the Attorney General's office were aware of the terms of the indemnity. As far as Arthur Cox is concerned, the initial draft agreement was proposed by CORI in 2001. It was not accepted at the time. In January 2002, the Minister made the agreement in principle on the amount of the congregations' contribution towards the redress schemes. Officials of the Departments of Finance, Education and Science and the Attorney General's office set out to hammer out the 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.

I have replied to most of the other issues to which the Deputy referred, but he asked me about the money aspects. Agreement was reached that the congregations would contribute €128 million towards the redress scheme. As I said yesterday, there was no exact scientific formula for reaching a figure for the congregations' contribution. However, a number of agreements were made. One was that €41 million would be in cash, of which just over €34 million has been lodged to date. It was intended by CORI that €12.7 million would be placed in an educational trust, but this was not accepted by the Department and a minimum cash amount of €41 million was later agreed. There was €77 million in property transfers.

The State can refuse to accept any property offered and can seek alternative properties. The property issues are still under discussion with the representatives of CORI, and any shortfall in property must be made up by cash. CORI originally wanted to go back ten years, which the Minister did not accept. Following intensive negotiations, a date in May was agreed, and I apologised on behalf of the Government to those people affected over the years. A sum of €10 million was put forward for counselling. There was a commitment to continue this service for as long as required, even after the €10 million was spent.

The legal indemnity covers only those cases which could be heard by the redress board but where the victim has opted instead for a court hearing.

If the Taoiseach was answering 20 questions there, I would not like him to have been doing an examination. He is still engaged in obfuscation. Surely he knows at this stage how many claims are with the Department of Education and Science. Why is the Taoiseach still muttering that it could be between 2,000 and 5,000? Is it not a fact that if 2,000 cost €500 million, 4,000 are likely to cost €1 billion? What is the mystery about that? The Taoiseach obviously had no audit done of the properties or assets. It is obvious that the wider deed of indemnity was not debated in this House or advised to the House and was drafted by Arthur Cox. Is not that a fact? Is the Taoiseach saying to this House that his Ministers knew this wider indemnity covered cases where the claimants had resort to the courts as well as to the redress board? I believe they did not. I also believe the Attorney General was not involved. It is for him to say why he was not involved, because he should have been involved. Is it not the case that for the disgracefully abused victims, who deserve compensation, the Taoiseach did a recklessly negligent deal for the same reason he was recklessly negligent with the public finances because he wanted to win votes coming up to a general election? It was a disgraceful deal for taxpayers.

Deputy Rabbitte began a fortnight ago by saying this was some big hidden deal.

The indemnity was hidden.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

The issue was debated in this House approximately 14 times.

The indemnity was not debated.

The indemnity was agreed in February and the Minister made clear what the indemnity was.

The indemnity was not debated.

There cannot be a point of order on Leaders' Questions. Deputy Shortall must allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

There cannot be a point of order on Leaders' Questions once we are within the Standing Order. The Taoiseach is entitled to reply.

The indemnity—

Deputy Shortall, that is not a point of order. I ask you to resume your seat. The Deputy is not entitled to contribute on Leaders' Questions because she is not the leader of her party.

All the information and facts were in the public domain. It is quite clear that if the Government did not act as it did throughout all of this, those who were abused and suffered in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and until the Kennedy report of 1970 which recommended closure of industrial schools, would not have been dealt with. The Government made a decision that we should find a way to fast track these cases and not make each individual in the courts go through the trauma of decades, as CORI and the religious orders wanted. The Government stood up for these people, as no Government had bothered to do for 40 years. The Government is proud of its action.

Unfortunately, yesterday Deputy Rabbitte mixed up the issue. He thought he was having a "go" at the Cardinal and the church. He did not realise the distinction with the religious orders.

I did not mix up the issue. The Taoiseach abused the taxpayers.

The fact is that those who lodged preliminary claims are being dealt with by the courts. It is right they should get the money and, despite the efforts of the Labour Party to stop them getting their money, they will get it.