On behalf of my party, I wish to be associated with Deputy Kenny's and the Taoiseach's expressions of sympathy to the family of Frances Sheridan. I greatly doubt whether another insider review is what is required in what is manifestly a dysfunctional service.

I return to a question I sought to raise in the House on a number of occasions in respect of the reason the Government decided it should apportion liability for people abused in residential institutions on the basis of capping the liability of religious congregations at €128 million, while the liability of the taxpayer was unlimited. Now that the Laffoy interim report has been published, it is clear in terms of the discovery Ms Justice Laffoy sought to make, that her commission was seeking to make a judgment on the same point. She sought discovery to establish the basis on which the Government decided to assume liability for all cases, irrespective of circumstance, and the basis on which it decided that there should be a cap of €128 million. She was refused discovery. Was the reason for this refusal the same as the reason no papers were presented to Government, namely because the papers do not exist?

Did the Government do any State audit of the liability in these circumstances? We know the Comptroller and Auditor General did such an audit and concluded the liability could reach €1,000 million. He stated Government approval was given on the basis of an oral presentation and that no memorandum was submitted to Government by the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods. Ms Justice Laffoy states in her report that she concluded on the basis of interviews she had with the then Minister, Deputy Woods, that there were some papers that would justify putting a cap of €128 million on the liability of the religious congregations. Why was she not furnished with those papers when she sought discovery of them? Do they exist and will the Taoiseach cause them to be furnished to the Ryan commission?

Anything Mr. Justice Ryan or his commission requires will hopefully be made available to assist him because that is what we want to do. Since the establishment of the commission, 16 discovery orders have been made to the Department, 12 of which were delivered within the timeframes provided. In the case of six of those, extensions of time were granted by the commission. The difficulties encountered with the other four were subsequently resolved, so 16 cases were dealt with.

I do not have time to go through the details of the report but I understand it will be debated in the House. The problems facing the commission would not have been resolved simply by providing more resources, although we have tried our best to provide more resources. The clear message from the reviews conducted by the Attorney General and Mr. Justice Ryan is that changes are required in the procedures of the investigation committee and in the legislation.

The Taoiseach should answer the question.

I have answered the question. I have answered the question on discovery orders.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption. This is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

I will answer Deputy Quinn. I was asked whether I would assist in discovery for Mr. Justice Ryanand I said that I would. I went on to say that all the other 16 discoveries were dealt with. I was not asked any other question.

The papers exist.

I am now highlighting the issue of more resources, and this was also an issue highlighted in the report. Mr. Justice Ryan clearly states in his report that the legislation was overly ambitious, and this is the reason it was necessary to undertake reviews. Everybody accepted the fact that, if the commission were to continue as it was, it would not have produced a final report for at least ten years and would have cost of €200 million in lawyers' fees. Mr. Justice Ryan was of the opinion that both those figures were optimistic estimates.

I remind the House that the purpose of the commission is to give closure to victims. The Government has done everything possible in this case and will continue to help the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The Government apologised on behalf of the State. The objective is to deal with the people concerned and not just to argue about the cap. We wish to see the matter completed and deal with the people who were placed in institutions by the State and not properly cared for. We want to bring closure to these cases and not have an academic argument about where the cap should be.

The Taoiseach did not deal with any of the questions I asked. I asked him if the papers exist. Ms Justice Laffoy sought discovery of papers that would buttress the interviews given by the former Minister, Deputy Woods. She said in her report, "The committee is not satisfied that since its establishment, it has received the level of co-operation which it is entitled to receive from the Department of State which is its statutory sponsor". Those are very strong judicial words.

I put it to the Taoiseach the reason her order for discovery was not complied with was that, if the Department furnished such papers, it would show that there was no basis or justification for the apportionment of liability agreed by the Government with the religious congregations. The Taoiseach and the former Minister, Deputy Woods, did a fix-it deal. They plucked a figure out of the air.

Everybody in this House accepts that the State has some culpability but, in circumstances where the Controller and Auditor General estimates that the liability could amount to €1 billion, the Taoiseach and the Minister fixed a deal at €128 million, behind closed doors on the basis of an oral presentation, without a memorandum and without the involvement of the then Attorney General.

The reason no papers were furnished on discovery to Ms Justice Laffoy is because they do not exist. The Taoiseach and the former Minister plucked a figure out of the air. The Government is the custodian of the public finances and it is a disgraceful arrangement on behalf of the Irish taxpayer.

I will not agree with Deputy Rabbitte on this matter and he will not agree with me. I have a view that is contrary to his. Deputy Rabbitte's view is that the State should force these cases through to their finality——

That is not my view.

I could resolve the issue with absolute certainty by proceeding through the courts with the thousands of cases and there would be absolute certainty of where the blame lay.

The Taoiseach should produce the papers.

He should produce the papers.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption, please.

I was not prepared to do that.

Where are the papers?

This is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

We are waiting for an answer. They are all leaders on the Government benches.

I was not prepared to do that. We sought a way of making an apology to the victims, of finding a commission to process it——

It is trying to frustrate the commission.

——and to come to an agreement on what was a fair contribution. Whether Deputy Rabbitte likes it or not, in many cases the State put children into institutions where there was no proper inspection, control or accountability.

The Taoiseach should answer the question.

The State in this case is under an obligation. Over a long period of time, we sought to take a substantial amount of resources from religious institutions, but the State made the decisions, and we were right in what we did. Trying to jump off a few religious organisations and make them bankrupt is a deplorable act and that is really what Deputy Rabbitte is about.