The Taoiseach has rejected suggestions that the Government deliberately hampered the work of the child abuse commission but agreed that Ms Justice Laffoy had made valid criticisms of the Government for delays in its progress.
"I accept her criticisms," Mr Ahern told reporters in Sligo. "I accept that there were delays on the fixing of the legal fees and the delays because we said we wanted to do a second review. I accept those points.
"What I and the Government do not accept is that there was any deliberate attempt or effort by the Government in any way to frustrate the good work of Justice Laffoy or the operation of her investigation. Anything that happened because of the reasons we set out and the Government will accept criticisms of those delays.
"But it certainly does not accept the criticism that we knowingly or intentionally set out in a deliberate fashion to frustrate her tribunal or, in her own words, to make it powerless. We did not do that."
He suggested that some of those commenting on the matter in yesterday's press had not read the Government's response. "If they actually read it and then comment" that would be better, Mr Ahern said.
He outlined the series of events that led him to establish the Commission and recalled how Ms Justice Laffoy had been invited to head up the investigation. "She did a report and she actually set up the terms of reference, it wasn't dictated by us, as I recall it.
"If I have any regret in this, I never for the life of me thought that every case was going to turn into a huge court case with huge legal teams and all of that. If we continue on down that road, it will be 10 years. Not alone will the present Cabinet not be around the Cabinet table or in Dáil Éireann, we will be lucky still to be alive."
The Minister for Education said he wants the work of the Investigation Committee dealing with child abuse allegations to recommence immediately, despite Ms Justice Laffoy's decision last week to suspend its operation. Publishing proposals for the future of the inquiry, Mr Dempsey said yesterday he believed it could take just two or three years to complete its work, once new legislation is published next Spring. He accepted that the Government's proposed legislation could be changed significantly once the second review of the commission's work is complete.
The Government appears determined to introduce a system whereby the Commission will hear just "sample" cases of abuse rather than deal with each one of them, a move which is strongly opposed by victims' groups.
Mr Dempsey said that the need to wait until next Spring for legislation - by which time a challenge to the Commission's operation by the Christian Brothers will have been completed - need not mean the inquiry is at a standstill in the meantime. He told reporters that he does not accept the view of the child abuse commission that it must suspend the work of its investigation committee until the Government's review of its operation is complete. While he accepted that they could not continue looking at individual cases pending the outcome of the review, "there is a whole range of work that it can do".
Mr Dempsey agreed that the Government proposals were substantially the same as those it agreed upon last April and which ultimately led to Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation. It was proposing legislation, to be introduced next Spring, which would be based on the first review of the Commission's work which has been completed, and the second review which is underway.
It would also encompass any changes necessitated by the ruling in the challenge to the Commission's work taken by the Christian Brothers. A High Court judgement in this case is expected next month, with the result likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mr Dempsey outlined the method of "sampling" which the Government appears determined to introduce once its second review of the Commission's work has been completed. He gave the example of a case he knew of in which there were 58 allegations against a particular member of a religious order.
"Supposing five people go in making allegations against this particular brother and the Commission forms the opinion that this brother or nun or lay person was an abuser. Is there any reasonable case to be made that the other 53 people have to go through the procedure of a trial within a trial to prove what has already been proved?"
Sampling, he said, would be "to try and establish quite clearly that abuse took place in an institution, insofar as we can within the confines of the Constitutionbut not to get bogged down in having to listen to the harrowing stories of 56 or 57 people when we know after two or three what the situation is".