Political analysis: Ministers cast doubts on their own claims, writes Mark Brennock, Chief Political Correspondent
While the Taoiseach said on Monday that the Government accepted Ms Justice Laffoy's criticisms of it for the delays to the work of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Government's official response to the judge's resignation letter makes it clear that it does not.
Mr Dempsey sought to clarify this tonight by saying that, while the Government accepts the judge's complaint that there have been delays, it does not accept that these have all been the Government's fault.
"We can't argue that there was a delay: We would argue [with the proposition] that it was the Government's fault", he said.
The document puts forward a coherent argument as to why the time taken to set up a compensation scheme for victims, and to set up a scheme for the payment of lawyers was not excessive, and was not all the Government's fault. It took 11 months between a request from the commission for a decision "in principle" to set up a compensation scheme and the publication of detailed legislation on the matter, and this is not unreasonable, it says.
As for the legal fees, it was the lawyers who objected to no fewer than three proposals to deal with the matter before the issue was resolved, and this then had to be enshrined in legislation.
It also shows that, at the same time, the State was agreeing a compensation deal widely seen as very favourable to the religious institutions, and the Christian Brothers - as is their legal entitlement - were going to the courts to challenge the Commission's procedures. This, it says, cannot be blamed on the Government either.
But the Government's considered response, published last night, also casts serious doubt on key elements of the defence mounted by the Government over the past week. Firstly, it appears to contradict the persistent claims by the Taoiseach and several Ministers that, without the protracted reviews initiated by the Government, the commission could take eight to 11 years to complete its work.
This claim as to the timescale is at the core of the political justification for reviewing the Commission's operation, and then reviewing it again, thus adding almost two years to the whole thing.
The Government insists the eight to 11-year estimate came from the commission. However, it emerges from the documentation that the commission gave this estimate in November 2002, based on the fact that it had just 38 staff at the time.
However, the following month the Government agreed in principle to more than double staffing to 79.
This would undoubtedly have substantially shortened the time taken and the Government has known this for some time. Yet since last week, the mantra of the Taoiseach and several Ministers has been that the commission had to be reviewed because it would take up to 11 years, as if the Government had agreed to double the staffing level while believing that this would make no difference whatsoever to the time the commission would take.
Asked about this last night, Mr Dempsey conceded that were the additional staff appointed, the time taken could be some five to seven years. But he argued that the estimate given by the Government over the past week had not been altered as the commission had not yet appointed the extra staff.
This is because it had objected to the Government proposal that, for now, it employ the extra staff on six-month contracts.
This raises a second questionable element of the Government's defence - that it gave the Commission all the additional resources it had sought. This was repeated throughout last week by various Ministers.
It has emerged that Ms Justice Laffoy wrote to the Minister in December saying the Government decision "in principle" to give it extra staff "amounts in substance to a refusal of the request for additional resources pending the outcome of the remit review".
She did not see the Government's decision - that posts should be filled gradually and on a short-term basis with a provision for a further change to staffing levels after a review - as an agreement to give the commission what it sought.
After the judge resigned, Mr Dempsey said: "I didn't get any indication from her that she was unhappy with what we were planning".
While the letters from Ms Justice Laffoy to the Department of Education might not contain any explicit statement of unhappiness, there is a tone throughout of deep frustration and annoyance at the way in which the commission will be "extremely restricted".
Nowhere does Justice Laffoy say "I am unhappy", but extreme irritation almost drips from the pages.