My quick reading is that the clause is meaningless, circular and incomprehensible. That is because I fail to see how you can incur any liability in the first place unless you have been negligent. So they say on the one hand they'll keep you indemnified in clause 30.2 if you have been negligent and on the other in 30.3 say they won't if you have been negligent; hence my comment.....
I would anticipate that an English court would bend over backwards to strike out the effect of clause 30.3 but I agree you and your colleagues would be well advised to get some specialist advice. Is the contract subject to English or Irish law?