Snippet data - viewing only, no editing possible


Label

Field name

Field value


Sitting_Date

01/25/2017 12:00:00 AM


Sitting_Forum


Snippet Ref No

SnippetRefNo

CCC00100

Selected Quill

SnippetType

14

Saved Quill

SnippetType_C4D


Selected Quill

SnippetType_1

14

Speaker Name

IndxSpeakerName


Business Category

IndxMainHeadCat

Motions

Sub Category

IndxSubTopic

Establishment of Commission of Investigation into the Stardust Tragedy

Topic

IndxQHeadTopic

Motion [Private Members]

See Also

SeeAlso


Part1

TitlePart1

Air Corps

Part2

TitlePart2

Defence

Part3

TitlePart3

issues relating to

Volume

VolumeNo

936

Book No

BookNo

1

Pdf Ref

PdfPageRef


Default Business Index

IndexViewCategoryDefault


3 Part Title Business Index

IndexViewCategoryTitle

Motions\Defence\Air Corps\issues relating to

Default Topic Index

IndexViewCategoryDefaultSpeaker

Motions\Establishment of Commission of Investigation into the Stardust Tragedy

3 Part Topic Index

IndexViewCategoryTitleSpeaker

Establishment of Commission of Investigation into the Stardust Tragedy\Motion [Private Members]
Defence\Air Corps\issues relating to
Motions\Establishment of Commission of Investigation into the Stardust Tragedy
Motions\Defence\issues relating to\Air Corps

Motion Code

MotionCode

MPM

Motion Title

MotionTitle

Establishment of Commission of Investigation into the Stardust Tragedy

Stage

MotionStage

Motion [Private Members]

Amendment No

MotionAmendmentNo


Bill Code

BillCode


Bill Title

BillTitle


Stage

BillStage


Section

BillSection


Statement Code

StatementCode


Statement Title

StatementTitle


Stage

StatementStage


Hour Indicator

HourIndicator

Not applicable

Procedural Instruction

Procedural_Instruction

No

Debate Adjourned

DebateAdjourned

No

Question Askee

QAskee


Question Asker

QAsker


Question Department

QDept


Question ID

QID


Question Reference

QRef


Question Speaker PID

QSpeakerPID


Question Speaker PID To

QSpeakerPIDTo


Questions Asked

QUESTIONSASKED


Speaker Type

SpeakerType


Speaker Name

Senator


Deputy


Minister


Witness


Chairman


ViceChairman


ActingChairmanD


ActingChairmanS


Speaker4Display

Speaker4Display


Speaker

Speaker


SpeakerPID

SpeakerPID


SpeakerText

SpeakerText


OriginalUnidSnippet

OriginalUnidSnippet

BBEBA8A804DE0B30802580B300752573

LastModifiedSnippet

LastModifiedSnippet

03/05/2018 10:36:09 AM

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

TopicIndex1stCategoryValues

Snippet Contents:

It is important to see where we are before going on to consider what is best for the families and what can be achieved for them.
The report of the tribunal of inquiry reached a finding that arson was the cause of the fire, but that finding has been discredited and can no longer stand. There were innumerable campaigns by the families which led to the appointment of Mr. Paul Coffey in 2008/2009. Although there have been criticisms of his report, it is important to note that he found that the finding of arson in the tribunal's report had been based on a hypothesis and was not justified in considering facts produced in evidence before the tribunal. In the aftermath of the report of Mr. Coffey, this House set the record straight on the Keane report by unanimously agreeing a motion on 3 February 2009 that acknowledged that the cause of the fire was unknown and that the original finding of arson in the report of the tribunal of inquiry report was merely a hypothetical explanation not demonstrated by any evidence and that none of the persons present on the night of the fire could be held responsible for it. That was the mechanism the State used to ensure the finding made in the report of the tribunal of inquiry could be changed. The Official Report recorded that there was no evidence which supported a finding that the fire had been caused by arson.
The work of the families and those assisting them has brought them to the objective of trying to identify what caused the fire. The report of the tribunal of inquiry got it wrong; the Coffey report got it right when it stated there was no basis in fact for the finding that the fire had been caused by arson, but it could not identify the cause. The families are entitled to - I can understand why they want to - establish the cause of the fire on that fateful night. If there is new evidence which supports a finding that the fire was caused by a certain activity or that can lead to a conclusion on how it started, a commission of investigation should be established. The proposal made in the Government's amendment is that the evidence should be assessed to see whether it can stand up before a commission of investigation. It is important that the families be aware that commissions of investigation can be cold and impersonal. I do not want and no Member here wants the families to leave here believing that through the establishment of a commission of investigation they will be able to identify the cause of the fire. A commission of investigation would only reach a finding based on evidence properly admissible before a tribunal of inquiry not dissimilar from the rules in a court of law. It is important to assess and identify the evidence that is said to be new and whether it is sufficient to reach a finding by a commission of investigation that the fire was caused in a particular way. The objective of any commission of investigation is to establish the truth. If an inquiry is established I hope it will be able to identify the cause of the fire. However, I do not want the families to leave here believing a commission of investigation would result in the tragedy and unfairness to them being rectified because at the end of the process the commission might not be able to establish the cause of the fire. If there is sufficient strong evidence, it would be able to do so. The families should be aware that a commission is cold and impersonal and will only reach findings based on facts which are properly admitted in evidence before it.
Many Members of this House agree that if we are to establish a commission of investigation, decisions should be made promptly. It is unfair to the families to drag it out for much longer. If there is to be a scoping exercise to appraise the new evidence, that must be done promptly in order to ensure any commission of investigation is established in the very near future. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan is correct to say the Saville and Hillsborough inquiries were able to examine the findings of previous inquiries. We should not underestimate the task facing any individual who is asked to produce a finding of fact on an event which happened 36 years ago. That would be very difficult. Findings of fact can be based only on evidence given by individuals who were there or documents which were produced at the time. It is important to bring this matter to a conclusion quickly and that we do not prolong the families' uncertainty as to whether there will be an investigation. For that reason, we need to quickly and independently assess the new evidence to see whether it would justify the establishment of a commission of investigation.