Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The Minister regrets that he is unable to be present due to other business this afternoon.

The Minister would like to again emphasise that irrespective of any differences of opinion, nobody disputes the magnitude of the tragedy or the impact it had on the families concerned and on the wider community. We are all conscious that the anniversary of the fire is approaching and that this must be a particularly difficult time of year for all affected. The Minister has previously set out the background to the examination of the issues surrounding the Stardust fire, but it is necessary to summarise them again here so as to respond properly to the Deputy. As he will be aware, following a long campaign on the part of the victims, Mr. Paul Coffey, senior counsel, 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. The committee argued the original tribunal was flawed and that it had new evidence concerning the fire, which supported an alternative explanation for its cause.

Mr. Coffey publicly invited submissions from all interested parties and the committee gave extensive oral evidence and made written submissions as to the case for a new inquiry. Funding was provided to assist the committee with the legal and expert costs of participation in this process. Mr. Coffey's report was published in January 2009. He concluded that the original tribunal finding of arson was hypothetical only and that nobody present on the night could 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 could achieve would be another set of hypothetical findings which would not be in the public interest. The new and other evidence relied on by the committee, according to Mr. Coffey's analysis, at it highest merely established that the cause of the fire was unknown, a finding already made but not properly acknowledged by the original tribunal. The then Government accepted Mr. Coffey's findings and introduced motions in the Oireachtas in 2009 endorsing his conclusions and expressing sympathy with the affected families. These motions were passed in 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.

Mr. Coffey's findings were widely welcomed and many Deputies and Senators spoke in support of the motions to which I have referred. Over time, however, there has continued to be dissatisfaction which has given rise to extensive correspondence from the committee and its representatives to the Minister's Department and various agencies, including correspondence referring to possible legal action. Throughout this correspondence, the committee continued to argue for the validity of its alternative hypothesis as to cause of the fire.

Issues have been raised by members of the committee about the Coffey report. There has been an entirely unfounded suggestion that attempts were made to influence its drafting or conclusions. The Minister has previously made it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that no such influence was brought to bear. Unwarranted significance has been attributed to changes between a draft report and the final report. Of course, the nature of draft reports is such that they do change and the Government must rely on the final report submitted by Mr. Coffey. Mr. Coffey's conclusions and advice were entirely independent and, as I have said, widely welcomed on publication.

The Minister has the greatest sympathy for all those affected by the fire and understands those involved in the committee remain convinced that their explanation for what happened on the night represents what did occur. Nothing he has seen in the extensive correspondence to date, however, would be grounds for his taking a different view from the conclusions set out in Mr. Coffey's findings and endorsed in both Houses. The Minister is aware from recent reported statements that the committee intends to present a submission on the cause of the fire on the occasion of the forthcoming anniversary. At that or another time, he will, of course, arrange for the examination, as appropriate, of any such submission and for a response to be issued to the committee in due course. He feels, however, that it would be unfair to those who have suffered so much to raise unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved or to suggest what Mr. Coffey found can be set aside simply on the basis that his conclusions are not accepted by some. It is right, of course, that concerns about this dreadful and tragic event should be raised in this House and I thank the Deputy for raising the matter at this time.

See this speech in context