I answered questions on this last week and on several other occasions. I never had discussions with Cardinal Connell or any other religious person on this matter. I was at none of the discussions whatsoever, contrary to the impression Deputy Rabbitte gave on the "Today with Pat Kenny" programme this morning.
There seems to be confusion over the agreement reached with the religious congregations. That agreement gives indemnity to a number of religious orders that ran institutions which the State entrusted with functions that perhaps it should have carried out itself. There is no agreement with the Catholic Church as some people are endeavouring to make out. There is no deal with it and there is no agreement giving it indemnity.
Despite Deputy Rabbitte's difficulty with my raising the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, I will explain again. It is about providing financial compensation to people who suffered abuse in residential institutions. These were institutions which the State entrusted with functions that the State should, perhaps, have carried out itself. The agreement concluded between the State and the religious congregations was about ensuring that the religious made a meaningful contribution to the State's redress scheme. I use this opportunity to reject the bogus claim that this agreement was a rushed or secret deal pushed through in the last days of the previous Government. The Deputy's office is well aware that nothing is further from the truth. The negotiations with CORI on the extent of the contribution began at the end of 2000, contrary to the misleading opinion some people seek to generate. The House and the public were kept well abreast of developments.
As far back as 22 November 2000, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, issued a comprehensive statement saying that the religious congregations agreed in principle to participate in a child abuse compensation scheme. In the period since then the Department issued statements on at least three occasions detailing progress of the agreement with the religious congregations on contributions to the redress scheme. This can hardly be described as secretive behaviour. I excuse Deputies for not having the time to log into the Department's website to read the statements there.
I remind Deputies that the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2002, which is central to the agreement with the religious orders, came before the Oireachtas not less than 16 times over five readings in the House and four readings in the Seanad. As well as the opportunities presented by open debate on the Bill, I and Ministers have answered numerous questions on the issue. The agreement with the religious orders came before the Oireachtas no less than 16 times over five readings in this House and four readings in the Seanad. As well as the opportunities presented by the debate on the Bill for open discussion on the proposed agreement, both myself and Ministers have answered numerous questions on this. I looked at one or two debates from the Official Report at the weekend in which Deputy Bruton and the former Deputy Shatter received replies from the Minister in regard to provisions of compensation; that is not a secret agreement. On 20 June last year Deputy Shortall raised the agreement on the Adjournment and Deputy Bruton did so last week. Last week when Deputy Rabbitte was looking for the agreement I did not know that Deputy Shortall was given an assurance that the Official Report had been put in the Oireachtas Library last June.
Throughout 2001 officials in the Departments of Finance and Education and Science, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, had at least ten meetings with representatives of CORI. All of these are documented, all of them are on Department files. I was not aware of those matters last week, but they are all on record.
A point was reached based on what was thought to be the maximum numbers.