Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. I recognise that Deputy Broughan, who has been following this issue for as long as I can recall, is far more versed in it than I am. I promise to convey his remarks to the Minister. On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, I would like to thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The Minister regrets that he is unable to be present today due to other business.

The Minister would like to again emphasise that irrespective of any differences of opinions, no one disputes the magnitude of the tragedy or the impact it had on the families concerned and on the wider community. Deputy Broughan made the point that closure is very difficult in this case.

In the limited time today, rather than reiterating the full history of the examination of the issues surrounding the Stardust fire, the Minister would simply note that Mr. Paul Coffey SC was appointed in 2008 by the then Government, with the agreement of the victims' committee, to review the case made by the committee for a new inquiry into the fire. Mr. Coffey publicly invited submissions from all interested parties and the committee gave extensive oral evidence and made written submissions as to their case for a new inquiry.

His report was published in January 2009 and he concluded that the original tribunal finding of arson was a hypothetical one only and that no one present on the night can be held responsible. He further concluded that in the absence of any identified evidence as to the cause of the fire, the most another inquiry would achieve would be another set of hypothetical findings, which would not be in the public interest.

The then Government accepted Mr. Coffey's findings and introduced motions in the Oireachtas in 2009 endorsing his conclusions and expressing sympathy with the families. These motions were passed by both Houses. By endorsing Mr. Coffey's conclusion that the finding of arson was hypothetical only and that no one present could be held responsible, the motions also addressed a long-standing stigma of suggested criminality which some of the victims and bereaved felt hung over all who had been in attendance on the night.

While Mr. Coffey's findings were welcomed, there continued to be dissatisfaction and, in time, proceedings were taken by a number of the families to the European Court of Human Rights. Last year the court rejected that application but only on time grounds. Since then, representatives for a number of the families have written to the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of the Taoiseach making various claims and putting the Departments on notice of possible legal proceedings. Following consultation with the Attorney General's office, the Minister's Department has recently responded to the effect that it did not accept the conclusions arrived at in the correspondence and that legal proceedings along the lines indicated would be defended.

Notwithstanding that, to be of assistance to the Deputy, the Minister would like to make some general comments. The reference to withdrawn evidence is understood to relate to a reference to a basement on one of the maps used by the original tribunal. The fact is that Mr. Coffey would have been aware of this matter and it was a matter for him to assess it.

Turning to the question of Mr. Coffey's report, the position is that Mr. Coffey's final report was received by the Government on 7 January 2009. This is the report which was associated with the Government's decision to move motions in support of his recommendations and which was then put in the public domain. An earlier draft of the report had been submitted in early December, on the basis that Mr. Coffey had asked to be permitted to make amendments for the purposes of correction, accuracy and clarification prior to its publication.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I should make it clear that no attempt was made by the Minister's Department to influence Mr. Coffey's drafting or to suggest any amendments. Irrespective of any analysis of the earlier draft however, it is the report of 7 January which represents Mr. Coffey's final and entirely independent advice to the Government on this matter and it stands on its own in this regard.

While it is the case that there is understandable concern that it has not been possible to establish the cause of this dreadful fire with certainty, no grounds have been put forward which would enable the House to resile from Mr. Coffey's findings - effectively, that another inquiry would not be in a position to take this matter further.

See this speech in context