I want to bring the Taoiseach back to the deal that he caused to be done on the day before the Government came into office, when he asked his friend and now backbencher, Deputy Woods, to do a deal with the religious congregations about their contribution to compensation for victims of abuse in residential institutions. The Taoiseach will recall that was done on 5 June 2002 and he will recall, for ease of reference, that the arrangement provided for unlimited exposure of the taxpayer and the Exchequer and a ring-fenced contribution from the religious institutions. It was roughly on the basis of one third cash, one third properties already transferred and one third properties to be identified for transfer. Under the deed of indemnity the properties were to be identified within nine months and accepted by the State. Now that the nine months have passed, have those properties been bestowed on the State? Is the Taoiseach satisfied, bad deal as it was, that at least that contribution has been made by the religious congregations?

Subject to getting the precise details, as I understand it, the lands and properties have been identified. I do not think they have been passed to the State but there is a number of these in the education area. Some time ago the Minister for Education and Science informed me of some of the properties the Department hoped to get and others that were still under negotiation. I can provide a list of the updated position. Deputy Rabbitte does not share my view. Perhaps the negotiations finished last June but they had gone on for a considerable time and they were properly conducted. Since we last spoke about the issue, the data were put in the public domain. I still believe it was a fair and responsible deal, which went through all the Cabinet procedures. With regard to the sites, I have every confidence the religious authorities will honour the commitments they gave. The Minister for Education and Science was anxious to get particular sites and lands that were more important to him than others. There might still be some level of discussion taking place on that issue but there is a commitment that they will be handed over to the State.

By way of reply to a parliamentary question on 10 June, the Minister for Education and Science made it plain that not one single property has been transferred in the nine months.

I said they had been identified, and the agreement was that they would be identified. I said they were not transferred.

We are agreed on that. On the identity question, the Minister stated: "However, a number of other properties were rejected on the basis that no benefit to the State could be identified by acquiring a title."

It would appear that the majority of the properties identified to be transferred have been rejected as being of no benefit to the State. In respect of the €40 million to accrue from the properties already transferred, according to the Minister's reply: "To date none of the properties on the list has been accepted." Regarding the €40 million that was to accrue from the properties already transferred, none of the properties is deemed suitable by the redress unit in the Department of Education and Science. Not only did the Taoiseach get a bad deal initially but it seems the deal, such as it is, has not been enforced and that taxpayers have good reason to feel acutely aggrieved at him and the former Minister, Deputy Woods. A person who would do a deal like that could not be sent to the well for water.

The church authorities will have to deliver on the deal. The amount of money involved was stipulated and the Minister for Education and Science has indicated the lands he requires. The fact that he has not agreed to accept those offered to date is an indication that there are others which he prioritises and wants to get. He has a register, if not a complete one, of church lands in which he is interested. I understand he has identified sites which he and his Department want. The State's position is that these sites must be delivered.

The deal states the religious institutions, not the Minister, will identify the sites.

There is provision for only one supplementary question. The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to continue.

From the earliest stage the religious authorities made suggestions as to which sites they would like to give over but the Minister is anxious to indicate where he wants the sites. Obviously, there are cases where he might otherwise have to purchase sites for school programmes. Hundreds of schools require land for extensions and most of the land, particularly in primary education, is in the hands of religious bodies. The Minister has many sites. I saw a list of key sites identified by the Minister. They have not been transferred.

They are not identified.

I believe they are identified. I accept that they are not transferred but they have been identified by the Department as those which it wants.

One would have thought the Minister would have said that in the answer to the parliamentary question.

That may be so, but he indicated to me the sites he and the Department wanted, so that they would not have to be bought in the future.

The answer is wrong then.