The compensation scheme for victims of abuse in religious institutions was at the centre of heated exchanges between the Labour Party Leader Mr Pat Rabbitte and the Taoiseach Mr Ahern in the Dail this evening.
Mr Rabbitte asked whether the then Attorney General Mr Michael McDowell was "involved in drafting the most open-ended indemnity in the history of the State. If he was, how did it [the agreement] get past him. If he wasn't, why wasn't he."
The Taoiseach responded that "the Attorney General and the Attorney General's Office was involved throughout the entire period and all the issues of the indemnity came fully in front of the Government."
The Residential Institutions Redress Scheme deal, which was finalised on June 5th last year, and negotiated by then Minister for Education, Mr Michael Woods, was costed at between euro200 million and euro500 million - based on an estimate that 3,000 people would make successful claims.
In the Dail today, Mr Rabbitte questioned the basis of this estimate. "How many cases are in the four folders, 3,000 at the time of the signing, although you did a deal on completely out of date numbers. Is it true there are 5,000 now?" he asked.
Mr Ahern replied that the exact details regarding numbers would be revealed during the Laffoy Commission, which is inquiring into abuse in institutions since the 1940s.
Another point Mr Rabbitte raised was why the suggestion by the Minister for Finance Mr McCreevy that the financial responsibility be apportioned 50-50 was not followed.
Under the deal struck with the religious orders by Dr Woods the religious orders were indemnified them for any liability beyond the ?128 million they agreed to pay. Any increase in liability due to either a higher average award or a greater number of claimants than anticipated will be borne entirely by the State.
Mr Ahern said that "there was no exact scientific formula for reaching a figure for the congregations' contribution." He said the guiding considerations were that that State was looking for voluntary contribution because they could not compel the congregations to pay.
He added that the State did not want to place such a burden on the congregations that they were driven out of business.
While the religious congregations were quite happy to go case by case into the courts the State was not, said Mr Ahern
"We made the system easy so that these people could get their money rather than having to go in and fight things that were 30 years old to the State," Mr Ahern said.