Reaction: Brother Edmund Garvey has said he believed the record would show that the Irish Christian Brothers had pointed out "the difficulties that would arise" at the Green Paper stage of the legislation setting up the Laffoy commission.
He was responding to a call last night by the Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, for a less legalistic approach to be adopted by parties to the commission.
"We really need to hear the Minister in full on this.We really need to hear details of his proposals for moving forward."
He repeated the Brothers' commitment to co-operate in every possible way to ensure there was justice, truth and healing for all who appeared before the commission, appellant and respondent alike.
Mr Colm O'Gorman, of the One in Four group, pointed to the last paragraph in the Government's response to Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation letter.
It quoted a reply to the judge from the secretary general of the Department of Education on December 13th which said it was "not a legal option to suspend the work of the investigation committee pending the enactment of any amending legislation, and that there was no legal basis for a suspension".
He wondered what implications this might have now that the investigation committee had been suspended by Ms Justice Laffoy. He welcomed the Government response, and the publication of correspondence between it and the judge, but called for the Government review to be "fully transparent".
All proposals and options being considered should be published. There should be consultation with all relevant parties, and the Oireachtas must play a greater role. The issue was too serious for party politics.
"It has to have Oireachtas consensus," he said. The Government had also to decide whether its priority was justice or the cost of same to the Exchequer. This "needs a clear statement".
He was dismissive of proposals of a payout to all victims. There was no sense of justice achieved then.
Ms Christine Buckley, of the Aislinn group, repeated her total opposition to a sample approach being adopted in dealing with victims. It would involve less than 1 per cent of survivors and could, by default, leave out many of the 110, possibly 150, institutions involved.
"How can that be just?" she asked.
She said that 12 years ago she had called for a truth and reconciliation-type of commission on the issue, and all it would have cost was the hiring of a hotel.
She disputed the Government's amazement at the 1,700 survivors for investigation, pointing out all relevant documentation was with the Department of Education and that 165,000 children had gone through the institutions between 1869 and 1969.
She was "utterly dismayed" that more had not come forward, but knew many were in prisons, psychiatric hospitals or ashamed to admit the past.
She also called for the resignation of Mr Dempsey or his removal to another Department.
Mr John Kelly, of Irish Survivors of Child Abuse, said "someone has to jump out of the box here" and called on all sides to drop the lawyers.
He wanted a new independent inquiry, independent of Government also, and headed by someone like Mr John Stalker.
He said such an inquiry would have two phases - a hearing for all and second hearings for the more serious cases, where findings of fact could be made.
The compensation issue must also be revisited, he said, with present awards at just 10 per cent of those made in the High Court.