I have raised with the Taoiseach many times in the House, including on four consecutive days last February, the question of the deal entered into with religious congregations. I made a number of points about the deficiency in the deal, but I made two points in particular. I said the Government grossly underestimated the liability and exposure of the taxpayer, which could amount to a total of €1 billion, and I pointed out that the Attorney General was not involved in the deed of indemnity

After the Taoiseach denied my charges, defended the deal and misled the House as to the number of complainants, the Comptroller and Auditor General decided to undertake his own assessment, published today. In it he concludes that the total exposure of the State will be between €869 million and €1.04 billion and points out that, at the time, the Attorney General was excluded from involvement in the critical negotiations. Initially, the then Minister, Deputy Woods, had him excluded and refused even to reply to his letters. Later, at the critical time, he was campaigning in the general election, ironically seeking to prevent the Taoiseach from spending €1,000 million building on a football stadium at a time when a deal for €1,000 million was being concluded in his office when he was not present.

The report published today by a constitutional officer, the Comptroller and Auditor General, is the most serious indictment ever to come before the House of a scandalously reckless, negligent and profligate deal entered into in the name of Irish taxpayers by a Government, the facts surrounding which the Taoiseach attempted to cover up, deny, refute and then defend in this House. The findings of this report are far more serious than anything ever concluded on behalf of the State by the Taoiseach's mentor, the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, who has been the subject of much odium in the House. Any Government that concluded a deal like this does not deserve to be in the charge of the affairs of the country.

I have previously said many things about this agreement. I disagree with Deputy Rabbitte that I misled the House. It will take at least two years before an assessment of how many people will be included under the terms of the agreement can be known and the figures I have previously indicated continue to be the figures indicated by the various Departments and the Attorney General.

Deputy Rabbitte and I will never agree on the indemnity agreement but we can at least listen to each other's points of view. I will at all times listen to his. The Government was committed to giving redress by way of compensation to victims of abuse and we intend to do so. The redress board was established for this purpose. If we had not agreed to compensate victims of abuse through this mechanism, then each and every court case brought to the High Court – at that stage there were approximately 2,000 cases – would have had to be fought in the court. It would have been necessary to bring a claim for financial contribution in respect of each case against the religious orders, which would have taken years. The compensation payments would have been delayed in thousands of court sittings. There would also have been debates about limitation periods and the responsibility of religious orders for abusers, which would have been a nightmare scenario for the victims. Given that she could not get the legal people involved, Ms Justice Laffoy was seeking to introduce a redress system and there was pressure on the Government to do so.

There is a commonly held belief, fostered by those who wish to confuse, that somehow the State was unwise to enter an indemnity agreement. I accept that Deputy Rabbitte continues to make that point.

I did not make that point and I never did so.

A number of facts demonstrate that this argument is without foundation. Indeed, in the view of this and the previous Government, concluding an agreement with the religious orders was in the best interest of the State. I remind the House that when the issue of responsibility between the state and the institutions was raised in the Canadian courts, according to a court decision the allocation of blame was 70% to the state and 30% to the religious orders. It is important in showing that the State had a major responsibility for what went on in these institutions. As I have said continually, and it is why I apologised, we abandoned the children of another generation in these institutions and failed miserably to ensure their interests were protected.

We know that.

It seems that everyone agrees with that proposition, as Deputy Rabbitte has said. However, the logical conclusion that arises from this is that the State has to bear a significant proportion of the responsibility towards victims, and that is our view. In entering into the indemnity agreement, the State was conscious of the fact that victims could lose cases brought against religious orders, which would have been an appalling scenario. To arrange for the religious orders to make payments to the State, totalling €127 million, was in our view a sensible way to proceed.

As I have done so before, I can set out the reasons we believe many of these people would lose their cases. There are several problems in this area, one of which I wish to highlight. Under our law, where a victim obtains a judgment under civil liability legislation for a monetary sum, the total amount of the judgment would have to be paid by the State. It is a fundamental principle of our code that those who committed wrongs are liable for all of the injury or loss, even though they bear different degrees of responsibility. This means that even if one is only 1% responsible in law – the State's responsibility was certainly far higher than that – all of the damages must be paid, with recovery to be sought from other wrongdoers. The State would have ended up paying the money in any event.

I do not know what will be the final figure. Our view continues to be that it will not be anything like what the eminent Comptroller and Auditor General has said. We still believe it will be far smaller. However, we continue to faithfully hold the view that we would not have been able to deal with this issue if we did not establish a redress board and if we did not properly agree a compensation indemnity claim. We could have ended up with the worst of all scenarios, where the individuals would have received no money. That was our legal opinion then and now, and it remains the Government's view.

It is disgraceful for the Taoiseach and his office to dismiss in this House the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General as if it were an unfounded charge. Why did the Department of Finance recommend a 50-50 arrangement and why did the Government initially pursue that strategy if the Taoiseach considers it to be an unfair apportionment? Any Taoiseach who would say that a contribution of €127 million by the religious orders is a sensible way forward in a deal that the Comptroller and Auditor General estimates could cost of the order of €1 billion does not deserve to be in the Taoiseach's position. How could he have entered into such a deal in circumstances where, according I understand to page 85 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the Department of Education and Science said it was not legally competent to permit its Minister to sign the indemnity without the involvement of the Attorney General, while yet proceeding to sign off on it? When the deal went to the Cabinet on the last day of the previous Government's term of office, the Department knew it was inadequate. On 29 June 2001, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, had written to say he was disappointed with the contribution from the religious congregations based on the then assessment of €200 million to €400 million. If it was disappointing in that context, it is certainly disappointing in the context of €800 million to €1,000 million.

There is no explanation for this. The Attorney General was not at his desk. When he was, he was excluded by a decision by the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, who attended the two critical meetings at which the deal was entered into. The then Minister has never told us why that happened. All the Taoiseach's Cabinet colleagues were involved, including the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Who would have thought we have come to the stage where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will not even come into the House? He was up lamp posts when this major deal was being concluded and was nowhere in sight. On the last day he said it was a deficient deal and that it contained no mechanism to deal with the rising number of complainants, yet the Taoiseach signed off on it anyway. The Taoiseach sent out "Woodsie" to agree a secret indemnity that was never debated in this House, he signed off on it and hoped it would never come back to haunt him, but it has done so.

For the record, there was debate in this House on numerous occasions.

Deputy Woods must find another way of making his point. I ask him to resume his seat. As it is Leaders' Questions, only party leaders may intervene.

Whatever about the accusations Deputy Rabbitte makes about people being out campaigning, what he has stated is not true either. This matter was discussed repeatedly in the House and was long in the public domain.

The indemnity deal was never discussed.

Deputy Rabbitte should allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The Government agreed in principle to establish a compensation scheme on 3 October 2000. There were meetings with the congregations on 10 November at which they indicated their intention to make a meaningful contribution. Further meetings were held on 27 November 2000, 2 and 21 February, 6 and 23 March, 4 and 30 April, 10 May, and 5 and 26 June. All meetings were attended by officials of the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General and representatives of the congregations.

They went nowhere.

As discussions proceeded, the then Minister for Education and Science became involved resulting in a deal being agreed.

There is no comparable situation for these issues of which the Government is aware. The Canadian arrangement has worked. The State must bear a significant liability given that, in many cases of abuse, children had been taken from their homes by the State and placed in the care of religious orders, some of whose members abused them. In many cases State agencies were aware that institutions were being run under abusive regimes. Some institutions covered by the redress scheme were run by the State. There was 100% liability in many cases.

There was 100% liability?

In many cases the State turned its back on its responsibility to cherish the children of the nation. If we were to adopt an alternative approach that would force victims to face—

That is not the issue.

It is.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption. His time has concluded.

If we were to follow through Deputy Rabbitte's point, something on which he continually misleads the people—

The Taoiseach is trying to mislead to remove himself from this situation.

—victims would face traumatic cross-examination by lawyers. It would take many years for the courts to finish hearing 2,000 to 4,000 cases. Many could be thrown out by the courts because of the amount of time that had elapsed since the abuse occurred. Much of the property of the congregations is tied up in trusts and would not be taken, even by the courts. The legal fees would be enormous. Some of the congregations which have contributed have few or no claims against them.

The suggestion that the congregations have a great deal of money which can be taken is not true. The idea that schools, homes and institutions can be taken to be sold to put money in the redress fund is not true. Deputy Rabbitte continues to mislead people on this and he is wrong.

On a point of order—

There cannot be a point of order. Only the Taoiseach and the leaders of the parties are entitled to speak.

The Taoiseach misled the House in his statement.

There cannot be a point of order from Deputy Shortall. The Chair wishes to make a statement. Perhaps the Deputy would resume her seat.

I remind Members that the leaders of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Technical Group are entitled to two minutes to ask questions and the Taoiseach is entitled to three minutes to reply. Party leaders are entitled to one minute each for supplementary questions and the Taoiseach is entitled to one minute to reply to each. Perhaps Members would stay within those time limits contained in the Standing Order.