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.