All parties in the House were happy to support the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to enable awards to be made to claimants who suffered abuse in residential institutions. An entirely separate scheme between 18 religious congregations and the State was concluded without ever being debated in the House. This agreement involved the taxpayer underwriting the full liability of the religious congregations arising from court cases, even where complainants never went to the redress board. The Comptroller and Auditor General has estimated that the liability will be between €869 million and €1.04 billion.

The Taoiseach told us that the then Attorney General and his officials were involved throughout the entire period. That was not true. The Taoiseach told us that all meetings were documented and on departmental files. That was not true. The Taoiseach told us that the indemnity was worked out in February. That was not true. The Taoiseach told us that the terms of the indemnity were fully and repeatedly debated in the House. That was not true. The Taoiseach told us that proper Cabinet procedures had been followed. That was not true.

The truth was that the then Attorney General and his officials were excluded from the critical meetings. The truth was that no record was kept of those critical meetings. The truth was that the indemnity was not worked out in February. Negotiations did not start on it until 19 April, one day before the House was dissolved. No memorandum was put to Cabinet in January. It was approved on a verbal report from the then Minister for Education and Science. Where does the former Minister for Education and Science think he derived his legal capacity to bind the State into such an agreement?

I want to draw the Taoiseach's attention to the public financial procedures from the Department of Finance. They state:

In the absence of specific legislation covering the issue of a particular indemnity, any letter issued should indicate clearly that the assurance contained therein is not an unqualified promise to pay but rather an undertaking by the Minister concerned to take the appropriate steps to seek the necessary authority of the Oireachtas to ensure payment.

When did the Taoiseach get that necessary authority from the Oireachtas?

I am glad Deputy Rabbitte has acknowledged we all agree that we wanted to provide redress for the victims, because he has declined to do so before. On all the other questions and propositions he made, I disagree with the Deputy.

There was proper consultation with the Cabinet throughout. Of the 16 meetings that took place, the then Attorney General personally attended 12. He was aware of two of the other meetings, but neither he nor his officials attended. He had not got full information and he made that point clear. At the other two meetings, the only two people who attended were the then Minister for Education and Science and the Secretary General of the Department. The reason was that the talks had broken down, the Laffoy commission wanted to get on with its work and the then Minister wanted to resolve the issue.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct that I said it was resolved in February 2002. I should have said 31 January, which was the day before February. It was noted at the Government meeting that the then Minister for Education and Science had reached agreement with representatives of the religious orders on the contribution to be made by them to the compensation fund in respect of victims of abuse in institutions. That contribution was in cash and property to be valued at €128 million. There would be property transfers, the date of the Taoiseach's apology in 1999 being reckoned for that purpose. That still is the position. On that same day, a statement was made to all and sundry that the Government had on that day agreed, in principle, to set proposals that the religious congregations contribute €128 million to the scheme for people who suffered while in institutional care.

The statement is already in the public domain, so there is no need for me to continue. It is dated 30 January 2002. That was the policy decision made by the entire Government. Then the details had to be worked out legally and finalised. That went on until June 2002, but did not change the substance of the original position. I contend that things were done properly in all aspects of this matter, the Department of Finance from an accountability viewpoint, the then Government and the then Attorney General's involvement, other than the period when he was unhappy that he was not getting sufficient details of the discussions, which is in the public domain in reports of last year and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

That is the position. I reiterate there was an urgency on the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, to conclude these issues since the work of the Laffoy commission was being held up because we had not given agreement to go ahead with the other issues. That is contained in endless letters that have been put into the public domain. There was pressure on the Minister so that we could move forward to get agreement.

The other substantive point is that if the religious had never contributed €1, the Government was committed to a redress system. We would have gone ahead anyway. They are the facts.

What is the answer to my one question: from where did the Minister and Government derive the legal authority? What is the answer to that question? The Taoiseach has rambled on and confused the issues. The Labour Party, like every other party in the House, supported the redress Act. I do not know what the Taoiseach muttered under his breath, but it will be on the record as him implying that this party did not. Every party in the House supported the redress Act. There is no point in the Taoiseach twisting what I said about February. As he admitted, he is the one who said the terms of the indemnity were worked out in February. They did not start to be negotiated until 19 April and what was reported—

That is factually incorrect.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte.

—to Cabinet was the principle.

It was not.

The Committee of Public Accounts heard evidence from Mr. Boland that they only started to negotiate the terms of the indemnity on 19 April. I am asking the Taoiseach one question—

Would you ever shut up.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte without interruption.

When did the Taoiseach seek legislative authority from the Oireachtas for the indemnity that is spelled out in the procedures of the Department of Finance? When did he get the legislative authority? One question.

I want to answer two questions because the Deputy asked two.

The Taoiseach should answer the one he was asked.

The Deputy stated that what was agreed by Government on 30 January 2002 was just a matter of principle. I am saying it was not. I want to tell him what the Government decision was.

When did the Taoiseach get the legislative authority?

Deputy Rabbitte asked two questions.

Answer the question.

Allow the Taoiseach, please.

The Government decision was that it was noted that the Minister for Education and Science had reached agreement with representatives of religious orders on the contributions to be made by them to the compensation fund. It could not have been clearer. I am reading exactly the wording of the Government decision. That is the answer to the first question.

When did the Taoiseach get the legislative authority?

Sorry, Deputy Rabbitte. Allow the Taoiseach, please.

The answer to the second question is that in the Act of 2001 the Government stated that we would bring forward a redress scheme, which we did.

No, you did not.

We did.

No, you did not.

Sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption, please.

That is the Act that covers it and the Government made the decision and I cannot see—

No, you did not.

Deputy Rabbitte, allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

I discussed this with the Attorney General and everybody who was involved and, quite frankly, nobody can see the point Deputy Rabbitte is trying to make.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can see it.

No, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform cannot.

Sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made his point about the fact that there were two meetings where he was not in attendance and two other meetings that he did not go to because he did not have sufficient notification.

He was excluded from critical meetings.

He never stated that the deal was other than a fair and reasonable one.

The Attorney General was excluded and the Oireachtas was ignored.

Sorry, Deputy O'Keeffe, you are not leader of the Labour Party. Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

He never stated that.

Where is the legislative authority?

He stands over that decision. He is not –

I call Deputy Sargent on another question.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question.

Deputy Sargent has been called. I ask Deputy Rabbitte to resume his seat.

Today has been designated walk to school day. I see the Minister for Education and Science has not made it yet.

He is walking around in circles.

I hope he is not setting out from County Meath. For many children who are walking to school, very often it is not actually a school they are going to, it is a leaky hall, maybe rat-infested, as the school has not yet been built.

Come off it.

This is a long story.

Indeed it is. Perhaps it is also a school—

Deputy Sargent, without interruption please.

It is a fairy tale.

Perhaps it is also a school in which the plans for their extension have been frozen, permanently it seems, by the Department of Education and Science. It may also be a substandard school, of which there are many around the country. It may also be a school in which the overcrowded classrooms make it very difficult to get through the day or it may be a school in which the teacher does not have the qualifications required for the job.

On top of all that, is the Taoiseach aware that the ESRI is not pulling any punches in its budget prospectus of 2004, when it says that Irish children at pre-school or primary school – and these are its words – get a level of funding that is very low by European standards? I know the Taoiseach has a briefing that tells us that he has doubled spending on primary level in the past decade, but the reality is that we still invest far less than many EU states and as a country we still have a very young age profile. When will the Taoiseach address his Government's failures which have clearly been set out by the ESRI? It stated that the identification of best practice in countering disadvantage in the Irish context has been hindered by the lack of systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of existing measures. In other words, we do not have a co-ordinated coherent, competent Government. It is all over the shop when it comes to education and children are suffering for it. It is a damning assessment of the Taoiseach's platitudes on disadvantage. It is a strange and classic contrast that he is able to arrange cosy chats with the head of Shell Oil—

The Deputy's two minutes are concluded.

—at the drop of a hat to help him increase his profits further and he does not even have a vote in the country. Yet the Taoiseach cannot meet and deal with the questions of education. The 1999 White Paper on early childhood education recommended the establishment of an early childhood education agency. Four years later will the Taoiseach be establishing such an agency and how long do we have to wait?

Deputy Sargent obviously wants to try to run down our education service.

The Taoiseach is doing a good job himself.

The Taoiseach without interruption, please.

He quoted a few figures that he made up but I will give him the true figures.

The ESRI does not make up its figures.

Deputy Sargent, allow the Taoiseach, please.

I will give the worldwide OECD figures.

Sorry, Deputy Sargent, you had your opportunity. Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

I am being misrepresented, a Cheann Comhairle.

The small print in the ESRI report states that we must keep our fiscal and monetary position very tight and we should cut back far more on public expenditure. Deputy Sargent forgot to quote that bit in his preface.

It is all in the small print.

On the OECD indicators for this year, Ireland ranked fifth of the 32 OECD countries in reading literacy in primary schools, we ranked ninth in overall literacy and 15th out of 27 in mathematical literacy. In disadvantaged education we have now targeted provision and this year there are resource teachers in almost 2,300 schools. We now have 3,500 more teachers at primary level – we will leave out post-primary because Deputy Sargent did not raise that; we now have a pupil-teacher ratio at primary level that is down to 19:1, a historic figure which helps children in disadvantaged areas.

Is the Taoiseach happy with that?

Yes, I am. It is an enormous achievement, as is the fact that we are spending about €300 million a year improving our schools. When I came into Government there were four contracts for education in the whole country, now there are several hundred. A large number of new schools opened last September. We now have proper resource teachers, and teachers dealing with disadvantage. We have more walking principals and school liaison principals. Things have improved dramatically since Deputy Sargent was in a classroom and he should acknowledge that. They are the facts. We will continue to do this.

If the Deputy has any other good ideas other than raw criticism about how the teachers are working hard in the education system, I would like to hear it. Does he have something against what is going on in his profession?

I have plenty of good ideas.

Deputy Ryan, allow Deputy Sargent without interruption.

I expected the Taoiseach would paint a picture of expenditure without referring to the essential criticism made by the ESRI which is that it is money that has not been well spent. The expenditure was not co-ordinated and it has not produced the results that it ought to have produced. That is an issue the Taoiseach will make more difficult because I ask him whether he is going to proceed with the estimated 1,000 cuts in education as part of 5,000 job cuts in the public service. Based on the ESRI report, is that his intention and, if so, how does he expect to address the damning figures of 90,000 children living in consistent poverty and the increase in relative poverty from 15% in 1994 to the present level of 22% as outlined by the Combat Poverty Agency? Does the Taoiseach accept that if he goes ahead with these cuts – 1,000 in education – politically he will be a dead man walking going into the next election? Nearly ten years after the UN Year of the Family and with the advent of the Irish Presidency of the European Union, is he prepared to see education further disadvantaged in real terms?

The Deputy's minute is concluded.

Will he answer my question about the early childhood education agency once and for all? Will it be established?

The Government is in favour of the proposals for early childhood education. The Minister for Education and Science outlined a number of initiatives—

Will the Government implement it?

—recently and has also put forward figures to resource them. This year again there will be several thousand additional teaching posts. There are some areas of education where there are not as many as the Minister would have wished and we cannot do anything about that. The Minister can only work with the resources that are available to him. He would like to invest more in some aspects of education. There are almost 3,500 more teachers at primary level; that is a significant number.

There are more children too.

There are approximately 3,500 additional special needs assistants helping in the education system. In numerous other ways the Government has put extra resources into education and they are all being maintained. There is only one area where the numbers are reduced and that is in the assessment of some areas of special needs where the staff are not required because the case they put forward has moved on and I believe the Deputy is aware of that fact.

Suffer the little children.

It is still abuse.

This year the Minister has again been given a significant budget for pre-school, after school and other schemes in disadvantaged areas, although it is admittedly not as high as he would like and he has made that clear. They are significant resources. There are no cutbacks in education.

No cuts? What about the 1,000 cuts?

More money is being spent on education this year than last year. There are more posts in education such as teaching posts and assistants. The capital programme is still a healthy figure, if not as big as it was last year.