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

I thank the Minister of State for attending. Over the past two decades in the Dáil, I have raised the Stardust tragedy and its aftermath probably on hundreds of occasions, given the ongoing and heroic struggle for justice of the Stardust Victims and Relatives Committee, outstandingly led over the years by Ms Christine Keegan, Ms Antoinette Keegan, Ms Gertrude Barrett, Ms Brid McDermott and Mr. Jimmy Dunne, with the strong support of many others, including Ms Geraldine Foy and Mr. Robin Knox.

I greatly welcomed the valuable re-examination undertaken by Mr. Paul Coffey SC in 2009 and its further clarification of the utterly flawed conclusions of the earlier Keane tribunal report of 1982. However, a number of disturbing issues have recently been raised with me about the publication of the Coffey report and the apparent significant differences between the report as carried out and submitted to the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government by the independent legal expert, Mr. Coffey, and the document published a month later by the Government.

I have before me excerpts from a copy of a document obtained through an FOI request by the researcher Ms. Geraldine Foy, namely, the Stardust report that was issued to the previous Government by Mr. Paul Coffey SC on 10 December 2008. Paragraph 5.12 states:

The real difficulty appears to lie in the fact that despite having made a finding based on evidence that the cause of the fire is unknown, the Tribunal has placed on the public record a “finding of fact” of criminal wrongdoing which is prima facie speculative and fraught with evidential and logical difficulties. Moreover, the finding is so phrased as to give the impression to a reasonable man or woman in the street that it is a finding established by evidence and not a mere hypothetical explanation for the fire.

Paragraph 5.13 then states:

I accept that this is profoundly unsatisfactory to the survivors and the bereaved. I also accept the Committee’s submission that such was the scale of the disaster that it has become a matter of communal if not national history to an extent that engages a public interest in ensuring that the public record of what happened is factually accurate and established by evidence. I further accept that a new inquiry is necessary if it is the only way of placing on the public record a finding that is based on evidence.

However, paragraph 5.13 of the Coffey report that was eventually published on 7 January 2009 states:

This is profoundly unsatisfactory to the survivors and the bereaved who through their Committee argue that such was the scale of the disaster that it has become a matter of communal if not national history ... It seems to me that the terms of resolutions under which the Tribunal was established by the Oireachtas require nothing less [than looking at new evidence].

The later and published version of the Coffey report omits the key statement that Mr. Coffey “further accept[s] that a new inquiry is necessary if it is the only way of placing on the public record a finding that is based on evidence.”

Will the Minister explain this material difference between the December 2008 Coffey report and the January 2009 Coffey report, which was brought before this House and which I welcomed on behalf of the 48 victims and their families? Why was the key sentence omitted from the final version of a report by an independent eminent legal person when published by the Government? It is further argued by members of the Stardust relatives and victims committee that there were 70 significant report alterations between the 10 December 2008 report issued to the Government by Mr. Paul Coffey SC and the final report of 7 January 2009. Is this the case? If it is, it is an extraordinary situation.

Is the Minister aware that a 2008 Garda letter, referred to in tab 31, appendix 9 of the Paul Coffey report, was neither published nor seen at any time by the families, their researchers or their representatives before 2010? This was a Garda letter referring to a basement at the Stardust nightclub, which did not exist. Above all, is the Minister aware that the committee and its supporters have consistently sought proof for this non-existent Stardust basement referred to in the Keane report but without success? Is it not clear that the non-existence of this basement was confirmed by An Garda Síochána in its 2004 review of the Foy report?

In 2009, after 28 years of campaigning by the victims and relatives committee, the report by Mr. Paul Coffey vindicated their long struggle to achieve some level of justice for their loved ones. They rightly believed the original flawed Keane report added horrific insult to injury. There is still a sense that there is not closure in this matter for many of the relatives of the victims of the Stardust fire and these material alterations, which they have discovered through a freedom of information request, make a strong case for a new Michael McDowell-type commission of investigation to finally establish what happened and to vindicate the names and families of the 48 tragic young victims.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

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

Would the Minister of State accept there are analogies between the conduct of the investigation into the Stardust disaster and, for example, Bloody Sunday where eventually the victims and relatives ended up with the Saville inquiry? I appreciate the Minister of State's good intentions to bring this matter to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and to ask him if he would review all the departmental files in regard to the Coffey report and the concerns I have expressed. Will he look again at the possibility of a short, sharp commission of investigation under the 2004 legislation to attempt to bring closure to this matter?

The Minister of State referred to hypothetical findings and so on. She investigated the issue of the victims of the Magdalen laundries in great depth and did some outstanding work in that regard. There is much documentary evidence available, including the Foy report, complied by Geraldine Foy in 2004, a famous book by two young journalists from the northside, Tony McCullough and Neil Fetherstonhaugh, entitled, They Never Came Home, evidence from local residents and so on, which is totally at variance with the conclusion of Keane and Coffey that the actual cause cannot be found. Will the Minister look at that again?

Approximately seven parishes in the wider Coolock area were devastated and continue to have profoundly sad memories of that time. There was a sense in this House and in the Seanad when the Coffey report came out that we were close to getting closure but these recent revelations, through a freedom of information request and from other sources, have disturbed that and people still want some sort of closure, which we finally got with the Magdalen report a few weeks ago and with the Murphy and Ryan reports into other great tragedies in Irish history. That is the type of closure for which we are looking and perhaps a commission of investigation is the only way to go. The Minister of State might convey that to the Minister, Deputy Shatter.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Broughan. No one could possibly imagine how people must feel in this regard, no matter the length of time that has passed. Closure is often very difficult.

The Deputy is quite correct that where an event has generated panic, it can be difficult to ascertain how it started and finished and the cause. One cannot say for certain what exactly happened and where responsibility lay. While we may all have drawn our own conclusions, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain. I will most definitely convey the Deputy's remarks to the Minister in the same manner in which he made his case.