Check Against Delivery

New evidence on the Stardust Fire Tragedy - Deputy Finian McGrath

Response by Minister of State Dinny McGinley TD on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter TD

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

The Minister would like to begin by again emphasising that 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 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 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.  The Committee argued the original Tribunal was flawed and that it had new evidence concerning the fire, evidence 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 their case for a new inquiry.  Funding was provided to assist the Committee with the legal and expert costs of their participation in this process.  Mr. Coffey’s report was published in January 2009.  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 could achieve would be another set of hypothetical findings, which would not be in the public interest.  The new and other evidence relied upon by the Committee, according to Mr. Coffey’s analysis, at it highest merely established that the cause of the fire is 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 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 I have referred to.  Over time, however, there has continued to be dissatisfaction which has given rise to extensive correspondence from the Committee and their representatives to the Minister’s Department and other agencies, including correspondence referring to possible legal action.  Throughout this correspondence, the Committee has 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 his 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 that they do change and the Government of the day clearly had to rely on the final report submitted by Mr. Coffey.  Mr. Coffey’s conclusions and advice were entirely independent, and as I have said, were widely welcomed upon publication.

The Minister has the greatest sympathy for all those affected by the fire, and understands of course that those involved in the Committee remain convinced that their explanation for what happened on the night is in fact what did occur.  Nothing he has seen in the extensive correspondence to date, however, would be grounds for his taking a different view to 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 concerning the cause of the fire on the occasion of forthcoming anniversary.  Whether at that time, or at any other point, the Minister will of course arrange for the examination as appropriate of any such submission, and for a response to issue to the Committee in due course.

The Minister 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 that 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 again thank the Deputy for raising this matter.

ENDS