Dáil debates

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

1:40 pm

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Today I raise the issue of new and important evidence relating to the Stardust fire tragedy. It is important to remember what happened in the early hours of 14 February 1981, when a catastrophic fire swept through the Stardust disco in Artane, which is in my constituency. There were 850 people present and most were between the ages of 18 and 25. Sadly, 48 people died and 128 people were seriously injured. The nightmare continues today for the families affected, who seek the truth, facts and, above all, justice. We should remember that the Stardust fire remains the greatest disaster to have occurred in the history of the State, so these families deserve our support, compassion and, above all, justice.

I have supported these families for many years and now they want the truth, so surely they are not asking for too much. I urge the Minister seriously to consider the new evidence put together by Robin Knox & Associates, fire and building regulation consultants, and the legal team for the Stardust families. I raised the issue with the Minister for Justice and Equality on 10 December 2013 and in response the Minister indicated that no new grounds were put forward. He also stated that there were no plans to reopen the inquiry.

Today I ask the Minister to examine the new facts and evidence. The transcripts of the 122 days of evidence to the 1981 Keane inquiry referred to over 500 photographs of the incident scene. The photographer selected and presented approximately 100 prints to the inquiry. There were no photographs of the kitchen, the remains of the first floor store, the lamp room, the purported basement, the cold room, the ground floor stores or the ground exit passage to the door below the first floor exit and the external escape stairway. This is new evidence not considered by Keane.

Researchers asked in 2006 for a photograph of the firefighting water-filled basement that Mr. John Gallagher, senior counsel for the independent examination, and later Mr. Paul Coffey, senior counsel, were offered. The families knew at the time that there was no basement, and that is also new evidence. Both of the Coffey independent examination reports from 10 December 2008 and 7 January 2009 include the first and second floor plans prepared by the researchers at the request of Mr. Gallagher, which also show new evidence. The plans were prepared by the families from facts garnered in their own investigation and knowledge, and without the advantage of the 1981 transcripts of evidence. The Coffey reports do not mention the basement, and this is new evidence. The Coffey reports mention a cold room that was not mentioned by the Keane inquiry, and this is new evidence. At the European Court of Human Rights, an observation relating to the Stardust families was that the "applicants noted in their observation that they did not receive a copy of the letter of 14 February 2008", which was after the Coffey review. However, the applicants did not indicate how this letter, which explains some of the reasons the police did not pursue prosecutions in 1982, could constitute "new, relevant evidence".

I call on the coroner to revisit the issue and reopen the incomplete inquest into the cause of death for each victim. We should hear the new and truthful facts.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

1:50 pm

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for responding on this issue. I wish to focus on a number of points he made. The families' position is quite clear. They are seeking an independent expert to examine the new facts I have presented to the House today. They do not want a lengthy tribunal – I accept that this is not what they are seeking – and would prefer to have somebody who would go through the new evidence, link it with the previous reports and deal with particular issues that arise.

It is important that we take cognisance of the fact that 48 young people died in this horrific tragedy and that 128 were injured, many of whom are still suffering today. There is much hurt and sadness. I appreciate the Minister of State's sympathy for the families, but I feel very strongly that we need more than sympathy. We need to be compassionate, but we also need to be open to the idea of getting the truth and the facts.

I welcome the Minister of State's comment that no one present on the night can be held responsible. This is one point we got out of the way earlier. There is one chink of light in the Minister of State's response, namely, his statement that the Minister is aware from recent reported statements that the committee intends to present a submission. He said, "he will, of course, arrange for the examination, as appropriate, of any such submission and a response to be issued to the committee in due course." That is the chink of light I would like to see. I would like to see the Minister examine the report which we have sent in. I have also sent in some of the evidence to the Minister in the past week because I met the families on a number of occasions recently. He should examine carefully what he sees in front of him. Of course, he should respond, but the bottom line is that the families are seeking a quick independent re-examination of the evidence. Even if the concerns of only a few families are at stake, we owe this to them. As I stated before, this was the worst tragedy in the history of the State. A total of 48 young people between the ages of 18 and 25 years died and 128 were injured. Many of the survivors still have the scars today. The State could be a little more flexible. I, therefore, urge the Minister to reconsider his position.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I certainly agree with the Deputy that there was a national tragedy. We all recall it so vividly, even after so many years, and I thank the Deputy for raising the matter again. I assure him that the points he has made will be brought to the attention of the Minister who is aware that there is dissatisfaction that it has not been possible to determine the true cause of the fire with certainty. He entirely sympathises with the frustration of the victims' committee in this regard. He sympathises with all those who continue to be affected by the tragedy. However, the position is that an independent examination by Mr. Coffey was carried out to assess the committee's case and substantial assistance was provided for the committee to participate in the process. Mr. Coffey's conclusions led to a motion of great significance being passed by both Houses clarifying the record as to the cause of the fire. Mr. Coffey also concluded that there remained no actual identified evidence as to the cause of the fire. In that context, in line with the motions, the best another inquiry could produce would be another set of hypothetical findings which would not be in the public interest. However, as I have said on behalf of the Minister, if a submission is made, it will be examined, but nothing raised in the correspondence to date would be grounds for him taking a different view from that set out in Mr. Coffey's findings. I again thank the Deputy for his continued interest in this terrible tragedy.

Sitting suspended at 2.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.10 p.m.