Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday marks the 25th anniversary of one of the greatest tragedies in the history of this State, the deaths of 48 young people in the Stardust club in Artane, Dublin 5. Most of those victims came from the ward and constituency that I have represented for the past 15 years. The publication of the tribunal of inquiry report in June 1982 was marked by incredulity on the part of many of the victims' families. Despite modest payments to victims and relatives' families in the mid-1980s, there has always been a sense of injustice and lack of closure among the people of Coolock, Raheny and the adjoining districts that I represent.

Those feelings have intensified in recent years. The book They Never Came Home by two distinguished young north-side journalists, Mr. Tony McCullagh and Mr. Neil Fetherstonhaugh, raised serious questions about the Stardust tribunal's investigations of the club's electrical system and the seat of the fire's outbreak. The book is, of course, the basis of a two-part film made by RTE that will be shown this Sunday and Monday.

Approximately two years ago, I became aware that the Stardust victims' committee had commissioned a new report from Ms Geraldine Foy to re-examine the key conclusions of the Stardust tribunal. That report rejected the conclusion that the fire had been started deliberately and seriously challenged the Stardust tribunal inquiry about the location and cause of the fire. Arising from that later report, a delegation of Stardust victims' relatives and I met Mr. Seán Aylward, Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and his principal officer, Mr. Noel Sinnott, in November 2004. The Stardust committee and its advisers walked out of the meeting in dismay at the officials' indication that the establishment of a further tribunal of inquiry could not be recommended. However, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, stated that any material submitted by the solicitor for the Stardust relatives might be reviewed by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Tonight I call again for the establishment of a new tribunal of inquiry into the Stardust fire of 1981. The works referred to above and new information that has become available make the conclusions of the Keane Stardust tribunal report, which I have here, untrustworthy, unfair and unsafe. Some of the key points that must be re-examined include the following. First, there was a clear conflict of interest in the appointment of the fire research station of the UK Department of the Environment as expert adviser to the tribunal, since it was working for Dublin Corporation at the time, a body with grave responsibility for the tragedy.

The Stardust was never inspected by the fire service and a litany of breaches of the building by-laws and public resort laws was revealed in the Keane report. Section 8.92 of the tribunal report states: "the practice of locking and chaining the exit doors until midnight at the earliest on disco night was not known to the Corporation". That statement is untrue. A few days ago a city council official rang me and informed me that he had reported to officials in the building controls section over three weeks before the catastrophe that exit doors had been locked late into the night at a function at which a friend had been present. It is further reported that a corporation staff party had been held in the Stardust the previous Christmas, 1980, and that the then Lord Mayor was present. That official was interviewed in the presence of the city architect by gardaí, yet the evidence does not seem to have reached the tribunal.

Third, conclusion 9.64 in the Keane tribunal report refers to serious shortcomings in the forensic examination by the gardaí and the Department of Justice, concluding that samples of material that might have been crucial were not taken and that important tests were not carried out. It is also clear that Mr. Eamon Butterly, the owner, and several of his staff seriously obstructed the Garda investigations. For those reasons alone, a new tribunal is essential.

Fourth, the Keane tribunal report concludes that there was no professional supervision of the electrical system in the reconstruction and fitting out of the Scott's Food factory that became the Stardust. However, the report disregarded compelling evidence relating to the electrical system and new research has challenged the tribunal's findings.

Fifth, in the light of those new findings and much testimony that is clearly present in the Stardust tribunal's report of 1982 from disco-goers and outside witnesses, it now seems clear that the fire began in the store room and spread through the roof space until it exploded over the dancers. Mr. Justice Keane concluded:

the cause of the fire is not known and may never be known. There is no evidence of an accidental origin and equally no evidence that the fire was started deliberately.

That was point 6.139 of the report. However, with such conflicting evidence, it bizarrely concluded that the most probable cause was that the fire had been deliberately started in the west alcove and not in the roof space.

Sixth, it is incredible that no one has ever been brought to account for the Stardust tragedy. The owner, Mr. Eamon Butterly, was severely criticised for his actions, but why was no prosecution pursued? The city management of the day was never called to account for its failure to implement even the existing planning and building and public resort by-laws.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of this appalling disaster, no counselling service has ever been provided for the survivors or relatives of victims. Recent media reports confirm that several families have suffered because their loved ones have never been identified. Many people ask why the most modern forensic techniques cannot be used to put those citizens' minds at rest at last. Relatives and survivors to whom I have spoken continue to ask for justice so that they can find some measure of closure regarding this horrific disaster. Such closure can come only when the issues outlined above, among others, are addressed. The most practical way to do that is for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Government to launch a new Stardust tribunal of inquiry.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this important matter this evening. I am sure that the entire House joins the Minister and me in expressing our sympathy and support for the families as the anniversary of the tragedy approaches. I fully understand the families' concerns regarding the background to the tragedy, and the Minister and the Department will assist them in any way they can. It is for that reason that officials from the Department have met representatives of the families on several occasions in recent years. These discussions led in 2004 to the presentation to the Department of a submission prepared on behalf of the Stardust victims committee and which examined a range of issues relating to the fire and its investigation. This submission was forwarded to the Garda Commissioner and to the forensic science laboratory for examination as to whether it constituted new evidence or material otherwise not dealt with by the tribunal of inquiry. Both the Garda Commissioner and the forensic science laboratory responded to the Department stating that the report contained no new evidence.

More specifically, the forensic science laboratory concluded that the report in question amounted to a different interpretation of matters already brought to the attention of the tribunal and not new evidence. Similarly, the Garda response concluded that no new evidence was forthcoming that would warrant the Garda Síochána revisiting the investigation and that all the matters raised in the report had been adequately addressed by the tribunal of inquiry.

A meeting was subsequently held in November 2004 between the Stardust victims committee and officials of the Department, including the Secretary General of the Department who attended on behalf of the Minister. The committee was informed of the views of the Garda Commissioner and the forensic science laboratory and advised that in the absence of compelling new evidence, the establishment of a further tribunal of inquiry could not be recommended.

The Minister is of the view it is important to note that the original inquiry carried out by the former Chief Justice was a substantial and extensive examination with comprehensive terms of reference. It sat for 122 days and heard evidence from 363 witnesses, 161 of whom were present in the building on the night of the fire. The tribunal had available to it a range of national and international expertise in matters relating to fire safety and building construction and detailed forensic and pathology evidence was also heard.

In drawing attention to the extent of the original inquiry, the Minister's intention is not to suggest that it cannot be revisited but rather to highlight that the grounds for doing so would have to be substantial. At the November meeting it was, however, made clear to the delegation that any further submission they or their representatives wished to make would be carefully examined. The present situation is that no new information has been brought to the Department's attention since then and that there is essentially no further advice that the Department can give to the families other than that conveyed at the meeting in November 2004.

It remains the cases that any submission received will be examined and in that light the Department has forwarded recent correspondence from the committee to the forensic science laboratory for its observations. The Minister's Department will keep the committee fully informed of any developments arising out from this and he will meet a delegation from the families if there is some new information or advice he can usefully give.