Waste of taxpayers' money and incompetent management are the hallmarks of the Government. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General yesterday is one litany of mismanagement, incompetence and waste. The party that is supposed to be able to run the country is running it into the ground. The worst waste of all is the deal with the religious congregations. Obviously the Taoiseach does not care about mismanagement of taxpayers' money. Many of his elected representatives, not to mention the fellows who visit the tent at the Galway Races, do not bother paying their taxes. How can he seek to defend the deal estimated by the Comptroller and Auditor General to be a liability in the order of €1 billion? How can he seek to dismiss the Comptroller and Auditor General's forensic report in the same fashion as he sought to dismiss the deficiencies in the deal, as I highlighted in the House last February?

I am interested in the fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who was absent from the relevant meeting, has moved this morning to restore his damaged reputation. Finally, in a briefing this morning, he told journalists that Deputy Woods was wrong and that he was not involved in the deal. The report seems to bear out his statement, although the reason he was not involved is a different question. Together with an official from his Department, the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, attended confidential meetings with religious congregations in which the latter were accompanied by solicitors and a senior counsel, during which they did this shameful, secret, negligent and fraudulent deal.

In the House yesterday, the Taoiseach misled us about the indemnity deed. Its terms were never debated in this House until Deputy Shortall raised the issue on 20 June, which was after the election and after the deal had been done. That was the first time the matter was raised in the House.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

The Taoiseach calculatedly and deliberately lied to this House yesterday and Deputy Woods sought to agree with him.

The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

This is the Taoiseach's opportunity to put the record right.

He entered into a negligent deal on behalf of the taxpayers and misled the House yesterday. The terms of the deed were never debated in the House.

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat when the Chair is on his feet.

They would not even debate the terms of the deed with the Attorney General because he was excluded from the meeting.

The Deputy is being disorderly. I ask him to withdraw the remark that a Member of the House lied.

The Taoiseach—

I am asking the Deputy to withdraw the remark unequivocally.

The Taoiseach misled the House.

The Deputy must withdraw the remark he made.

The Taoiseach is guilty of telling the House an untruth.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw unequivocally the remark that a lie was told.

The Deputy should be a man.

I withdraw it. It is a rose by any other name.

I will deal with the last matter first. We do not need to argue unduly about these matters.

I listened carefully to the diatribe from Deputy Rabbitte and I ask him to listen to me for a minute, please. The truth is that the only person who misled the House yesterday was Deputy Shortall. She is well aware that the indemnity was raised, discussed and debated in a number of questions. Deputy Rabbitte is correct that there was an Adjournment Debate in the House on 20 June, but that was 20 June 2002. Deputy Shortall is well aware that there was a full debate on the indemnity because she raised the matter on the Adjournment. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, replied for the Government. This was not the only occasion the matter was raised in the House. Prior to that, on 12 February 2002, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, addressing the Joint Committee on Education and Science, spoke at some length about the agreement between the Government—

That was after the event.

The Deputy should listen.

The figures were never revealed.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The election was in May.

The matter was never put to the House.

The matter was also dealt with in the House on 20 February during Report Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2001 when the Minister again referred to the proposed indemnity.

Referred, not debated.

On 8 March 2002, during Second Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2001, the Minister spoke about the broad thrust of the indemnity agreed in principle with the religious orders.

That was because he did not know the details.

He could hardly have gone through all the details since the indemnity was not finalised until much later, as people keep telling us.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption, please.

If the Opposition wants to keep interrupting me, it would be simple for me to tell my parliamentary party and colleagues in Government to interrupt Opposition Members when they speak, but I do not think that would serve Members of the House or the public.

To answer the questions Deputy Rabbitte raised, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on capital and current expenditure development came out yesterday and I welcome it. He gave a wide ranging report on the €33.6 billion the Government spent last year and made recommendations in a number of areas, particularly capital areas on which we spent €5.2 billion, including €1.25 billion on roads, €540 million on health and more than €1.2 billion on the environment and waste. All the recommendations will be looked at carefully.

The Taoiseach should tell that to the people in the car park of—

The other recommendations the Comptroller and Auditor General made will be examined carefully. This has been the procedure in the Departments every year since the relevant legislation was introduced in 1926. We thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for his work in this regard.

I totally reject and deny two things Deputy Rabbitte said. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has made clear the areas in which he was and was not involved.

He did so this morning.

I take issue with the unworthy suggestion made yesterday and today that the former Attorney General was too busy campaigning or that his eye was off the ball.

His eye was on the stadium.

The Minister, Deputy McDowell, was a conscientious Attorney General.

Was he deliberately excluded?

Allow the Taoiseach to speak, please.

He was completely on top of his brief. He attended some meetings and when he was not in attendance he was briefed on collective decisions made by the Government. The accusations are, therefore, totally untrue. Regarding the indemnity, it was not a hidden deal.

Why does no one know anything about it?

It has been debated in the House more than any other deal. I will continue to say for as long as I am around this House, or outside it for that matter, that it was a good deal. Deputy Rabbitte and his colleagues, when in government, would not even meet the people who wished to put their case.

Deputy Rabbitte closed the door on them and refused to meet them.

Not alone did we meet them, but we dealt with them in the Laffoy Commission and its successor will continue to deal with them.

Not only was the then Attorney General not on top of his brief, he was on top of a pole.

That is a cheap, unworthy jibe.

The Taoiseach knows this and has sought—

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak, please.

—to persist in the falsehood that the terms of the indemnity were debated in this House. He knows that is untrue. An indemnity was referred to in the House. The Taoiseach told the House the deal was not complete, so how could it have been debated? It was never debated. The then Attorney General was excluded and the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, would not reply to his letters. He then went AWOL—

That is not true.

—and by the time he came back in late May, as the report says, he brought in a senior counsel to examine the matter and then made his own comments on the day it went to Cabinet, which was the day before the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, left office. These are the facts of the matter. There are no records of the meetings in question. Would anybody who has served in government contemplate a circumstance in which a Minister attends a meeting with the Secretary General of his Department and no record or transcripts are kept? There was a retrospective note and an oral report was given to Cabinet on 30 January 2002. A memorandum was not even brought to Cabinet for its approval.

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

This is highly irregular and a grossly improper misuse of taxpayers' money. The Taoiseach is persisting in a falsehood when he knows the terms of the deed of indemnity were never debated in this House.

I have given the dates on which the matter was referred to extensively in this House, both in committee and in the Chamber. The deed was completed in January 2002 and finalised in the summer.

The indemnity was not completed.

Whatever political differences Members have, it is a sad day when they degrade the Chamber by making unfounded charges about a person who has shown extraordinary commitment to public service, did a first class job as Attorney General and continues to do so as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. People should stop this kind of behaviour.

The Taoiseach should tell that to Royston.

The Opposition loves asking questions, but does not listen to the answers. Deputy Rabbitte stated that there is no record of meetings and that they were all top of the head decisions. The meetings took place on 27 November 2000, 2 and 21 February, 6 and 23 March, 4 and 30 April, 10 May and 5 and 26 June—

How many of them were attended by the Attorney General?

All meetings were attended by officials from the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General and representatives of the congregations. Between January and June two meetings were held involving the above officials and officials of the Department of the Taoiseach. On 30 January, the Government agreed the key elements in principle and it was agreed at the full Cabinet by all Ministers present. Meetings were held between the Minister and the Secretary General when they met the congregations—

Why is there no record?

—on 7 November 2001 and 7 January 2002. If Deputy Rabbitte had any guts, he would stand up and admit he is just talking rubbish.

It is in this report.