Dáil debates

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

1:20 pm

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

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, for attending and the Minister, Deputy Shatter, for contacting us and giving his apologies. The Minister of State may recall it is almost a year ago today that I raised the same issue with her on the approach to the 32nd anniversary of the Stardust tragedy. We now approach the 33rd anniversary. The same unease and the same grief remains that this important legacy issue has not been dealt with. The Stardust Relatives and Victims Committee campaign is clearly showing the need for a commission of investigation into this tragedy under the 2004 legislation and I am calling for this investigation.

On hundreds of occasions in my time as a public representative, I have highlighted the concerns of the Stardust families that the cause of the fire was not adequately or correctly investigated by Justice Keane's tribunal or subsequently. Most recently, I have raised the matter with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. The families of those who died or were injured are rightly dissatisfied with the Keane report of 1982 and the subsequent report of Paul Coffey in 2009. As the Minister of State may be aware, a Garda investigation is now taking place into alleged perjured evidence presented to the Keane tribunal in 1981. In recent years, there have also been a number of instances of new evidence emerging about the tragedy. The families have in their possession research which points to inconsistencies between an earlier version of the Coffey report from 2008 and the final published report by Paul Coffey SC in 2009. They also note that a Garda letter sent to Paul Coffey in 2008 concerning the map of the Stardust presented at the Keane tribunal was not furnished to the families. They also have new evidence which I understand they will publish on the 33rd anniversary this Friday.

Based on research carried out by independent researcher, Ms Geraldine Foy, and a leading fire expert on these islands, Mr. Robin Knox, it seems clear that the fire started in the roof space of the Stardust nightclub where cleaning and other flammable materials were stored. The time line of the first external witnesses to the fire, as outlined by Ms Foy at a recent press conference in the Skylon Hotel, strongly supports this conclusion. The implications of this research are profound for finally establishing accountability for this terrible tragedy and for vindicating the memories of the young people who died and to bring closure to the great suffering of their relatives down through the decades.

Recently, the release of the 1983 State papers underlined the need for a new fresh inquiry. It was reported, on the release of those papers, that a confidential Government memo cautioned against fully implementing all of the recommendations of the Keane tribunal report because of the potential that it could leave the State open to civil liability claims for similar future accidents. It seems clear the Haughey Government of the day and subsequent governments were not overly concerned about getting to the root of this matter.

Earlier this year, I highlighted evidence also obtained by Ms Foy through a freedom of information request which showed that crucial aspects of an earlier unpublished draft of the Coffey report were not included in the final published version. Among other things, Paul Coffey stated in that draft: "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". Basically, the missing excerpt of the report related to the lack of an established cause of fire based on evidence having been erroneously arrived at by the earlier Keane report.

Members of the Stardust Relatives and Victims Committee have argued continuously that there were seven significant alterations of the Coffey report between it being in draft form and the later published version. They are very anxious that a short sharp commission of investigation is held into this tragedy. Last year I think the Minister of State associated herself with addressing one or two of the most critical legacy issues in our country and getting resolution for the victims and relatives. I hope she urges the Minister to do the same.

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

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. We are approaching the anniversary, which falls on such a poignant day each year, and it cannot be easy for people who lost such young vibrant people. I am taking this issue on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality who sends his apologies but he must be somewhere else. However, I commit to bringing back to him the remarks made by Deputy Broughan who has been a very active campaigner on behalf of this committee.

As the Minister previously emphasised, irrespective of any differences of opinion, no one 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 this Friday is the anniversary of the fire and all of our thoughts and sympathies are with those affected by this tragedy.

The Deputy is familiar with the background to the concerns relating to the cause of the Stardust fire. As the Minister has responded previously to queries the Deputy has raised on behalf of members of the committee, I will not revisit the full history of the case on the Minister's behalf.

The victims committee's long-running campaign for a new inquiry into the cause of the fire led to the making some years ago of a detailed submission making the case for a new inquiry, criticising the original tribunal and setting out an alternative hypothesis regarding the cause of the fire. The professional advice that was given to the Government at the time was that the argument being presented did not amount to new evidence. The committee rejected this assessment. It was precisely in response to this situation, and with a desire to resolve this question definitively and impartially, that an independent examination was put in place. Mr. Paul Coffey SC was appointed to carry out this exercise by making an entirely objective and professional assessment of the committee's call for a new inquiry. His appointment and terms of reference were agreed with the victims committee and its legal representatives. The committee was given considerable financial assistance to make its case. It had a full legal team to present that case over three days of hearings.

The outcome of the Coffey process was very significant, in so far as it led to resolutions in both Houses clarifying that no one present on the night can be held responsible. This was a key concern for many people and a central component of the committee's criticism of the original tribunal. Mr. Coffey concluded that in the absence of any identified evidence about 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. As the Deputy is aware, these findings were endorsed by motions in both Houses of the Oireachtas and were widely welcomed at the time. Since then, members of the committee have continued to contend that their theory on the cause of the fire accurately reflects what transpired. Nothing the Minister has seen would warrant a departure from Mr. Coffey's findings.

Issues have been raised by members of the committee about the Coffey process on the basis that they justify a further inquiry. There has been an entirely unfounded suggestion that attempts were made to influence his drafting or conclusions. The Minister has made it clear for the avoidance of doubt that no such influence was brought to bear. Unwarranted significance has been attributed to differences between a draft report and the final report. Extracts have been cited out of context and without regard to Mr. Coffey's actual recommendations, which were materially unchanged. The nature of draft reports is that they change. The Government of the day clearly had to rely on the final report, as submitted by Mr. Coffey. As I have said, Mr. Coffey's conclusions and advice were entirely independent and were widely welcomed when his final report was published. The Minister is aware that allegations have been made to the Garda concerning evidence presented to the original tribunal. The Deputy will appreciate that these allegations are matters for the Garda to examine in the normal way. It would not be appropriate for the Minister to comment on that process.

Clearly, members of the victims committee do not accept the outcome of the independent process which was put in place to enable them to present their case for a new inquiry. The people in question have made it clear that they will continue to campaign for a new inquiry. The Minister sympathises greatly with them, but having regard to the outcome of the independent examination and in the absence of new evidence concerning the actual cause of the fire, he does not believe it is open to him to disregard the advice which emerged from that process and which was endorsed in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister has indicated he will arrange for the examination, as appropriate, of a further submission on behalf of the committee. He has cautioned against raising unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved or appearing to suggest the outcome of the Coffey examination can be set aside, simply on the basis that Mr. Coffey's conclusions are not accepted by some.

It is right that concerns about this dreadful and tragic event should be raised in the House. On behalf of the Minister, I thank the Deputy for his continuing support of the victims committee. I can give him a commitment that I will ensure the Minister hears about the statement he has made today.

1:30 pm

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

The Minister has said on a number of occasions, in replies to parliamentary questions and in response to debates on this issue over the past year or two, that he has examined all of the new evidence presented to him and that he has concluded that nothing he has examined has changed his mind regarding Mr. Paul Coffey's final report. In that light, would it be possible for the Minister to meet the relatives and victims committee to explain why he believes the new evidence is not sufficient and why he thinks the Keane and Coffey conclusions are valid?

As the Minister of State knows, Ms Antoinette Keegan, who is a leading personality in the Stardust relatives and victims committee, occupied the security area at the Department of the Taoiseach for 24 hours last week on foot of a commitment given by the current Taoiseach during the 2011 general election contest. I understand that when he was in Coolock in support of Deputy Terence Flanagan's re-election campaign, the Taoiseach gave the people of Artane and Coolock a commitment that he would put a commission of investigation in train. On the basis of what he had heard at that stage, perhaps having listened to me and other Deputies in this House over the years, he felt a commission of investigation was necessary. Will the Minister of State follow up on that? The Tánaiste told me last Thursday morning that if a request for a meeting with representatives of the relatives and victims committee went to him, he would be prepared to meet them and such a meeting could take place.

The key aspect of the Minister of State's response was the statement that "unwarranted significance has been attributed to differences between a draft report and the final report". I suggest that the decision to omit Mr. Coffey's call for the establishment of a commission of investigation was a profound change. It is understandable that the relatives and victims committee and its advisers have paid strong attention to the draft report.

A number of investigations have taken place under the legislation that was introduced by Michael McDowell in 2004. I refer, for example, to the investigations in the cases of Dean Lyons and Gary Douch, a constituent of mine who died tragically. These commissions of investigation were short, sharp and effective. They did not cost the State a great deal of money. I think the commission of investigation approach is the right one to adopt in terms of cost. I thank the Minister of State for her attention to this matter. I would like her to ask the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to act in the manner that has been requested by the committee.

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

I have no difficulty in bringing the Deputy's request to the Minister. We will look at anything that can bring a degree of comfort to these families. I will also convey to the Minister the fact that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have indicated that they would be quite prepared to act in the manner suggested by the Deputy if such an invitation were extended and acceded to. I will convey that and I will do my best.