At last there is an indication that the Government may be willing to move to address outstanding questions about the Stardust fire in which 48 young people died and 214 more were injured 25 years ago in the Dublin suburb of Artane. There is a growing and increasingly convincing case that this should be done, based on the re-examination and reinterpretation of evidence in relation to how the disaster happened.
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dáil yesterday that he and the Minister for Justice are willing to meet a delegation representing the victims about any new evidence on how the nightclub fire came about. The issue has been highlighted by families of the victims and by renewed political and media attention associated with the 25th anniversary. This has given fresh voice to those within a disadvantaged community who are convinced the original tribunal investigation was unsatisfactory and that subsequent relevant evidence has been disregarded. They have struggled to gain a hearing and should be congratulated for their perseverance.
If it is to be reopened by way of public investigation and legal follow up, a convincing case must be made that the original evidence was not examined thoroughly and fully, or that new techniques are now available to assist, or that new evidence has come to hand which merits a reappraisal. In truth, the most important change in recent weeks is that the families' concerns are being taken seriously at the highest political levels. Many have said, and convincingly so, that had the tragedy happened in a more privileged part of Dublin this crucial breakthrough would have been made much earlier. Dissatisfaction with the outcome of the original tribunal would have been more sympathetically received in a different social class setting.
At this remove, a number of questions still need to be satisfactorily answered arising from the original tribunal findings and the legal follow-up to them. The tribunal concluded there was a "reckless disregard for people's safety" in the provisions made for exiting the Stardust premises and the fact that many of its doors and windows were locked and chained or otherwise fastened up. This prevented many of the victims escaping from the inferno inside the building. And yet no criminal proceedings were taken as a result of this finding. The tribunal found that on the balance of probabilities, based on expert evidence, the fire was caused by arson and not accidentally. On this basis the Stardust's owners won a case for substantial compensation. There is a great contrast between these outcomes.
New evidence about possible alternative locations and causes of the fire has emerged and should be examined thoroughly. This exercise in public accountability, which could give rise to a new tribunal, is a matter of prudent public policy about fire safety now, just as much as a long overdue recognition that full justice must be seen to be done to the victims of the Stardust disaster.