(Cavan-Monaghan), Mr. M. Cosgrave, Mr. Keating and Mr. Kelly asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the assurances, if any, he gave to the Stardust Relatives Committee at his meeting with them as reported in the media on 16th March 1981.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Artane (Dublin) Fire Disaster.
1.
Details of a meeting which I attended with the Stardust Relatives Committee were given in a press statement issued by the Government Information Service on 16 March 1981, and I have nothing further to add to that statement.
Having regard to the fact that on that same date, 16 March, The Irish Times printed a report according to which the Taoiseach agreed at the week-end that Mr. John Connolly——
The Deputy should not quote.
I am trying to ask a question as clearly as I can by putting this short report——
I am sorry but the Deputy may not quote at Question Time.
Can it be admitted that that report, the details of which have just been adverted to and which appeared at the time, would have made it impossible for anyone to raise the matter any earlier than this having regard to my being obstructed by yourself, sir, and others——
I am sorry, Deputy. The Ceann Comhairle is not obstructing any Deputy.
Having regard to the difficulties I have had in putting this question would it not be agreed that this particular matter could not have been put in time to be comprised in the details given to which reference has just been made?
That may or may not be so, but my attitude in this is that at the meeting of the Stardust Relatives Committee which I attended it was agreed that, apart from the statement the Government would make relating to the appointment of new legal representatives, no other statement would be made and I have adhered to that agreement with the representatives of the committee.
May I ask specifically whether the report in this paper, according to which the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, agreed that the chief fire advisor to the Minister for the Environment would be allowed to give evidence to the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust disaster is or is not correct?
My position in this matter is that I gave an undertaking to the representatives of the committee whom I met, and, apart from the announcement of the representatives, I would not publicly discuss any of the other matters which were discussed at the meeting. My understanding today is that at that time and since, this particular committee were anxious there should not be any more public debate or discussion about their attitudes or their requests. They were certainly satisfied on the legal representatives situation and wished to leave matters at that.
We are not talking about that.
Perhaps I could help the Deputy without reference to that particular matter by saying that the Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that no person whom this tribunal wishes to call before it, whether he be in the public service or elsewhere, will be in a position to refuse to appear before the tribunal.
This has nothing to do with the attitude of the relatives. I want an answer to a very simple question.
A question, Deputy.
Did the Taoiseach agree or not agree, as reported here, that Mr. Connolly would give evidence at this tribunal? Did he agree or not agree about that?
I have made it perfectly clear to the Deputy that I agreed with the representatives whom I met that, apart from the official Government announcement with regard to legal representatives, nothing further would be disclosed as to what took place and no matter what insistence Deputy Kelly indulges in in this matter I do not intend to depart from the undertaking I gave to those representatives.
Did the Taoiseach——
I am sorry. The Deputy has been allowed sufficient supplementaries. I am calling Deputy Fitzpatrick.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it not a fact that, on the debate on the establishment of this committee, Mr. Connolly's name was mentioned in this House whereupon the Taoiseach lost his temper and said “No, we will not have him” when it was being suggested he might be one of the tribunal?
I want to reject that completely. Such an incident never took place.
Not so.
On a point of explanation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am putting it to the Taoiseach that on that occasion when it was being suggested Mr. Connolly might be a member of the tribunal the Taoiseach said “No” in an angry fashion.
A question, Deputy. We will not have a debate on this matter.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it not a fact the Taoiseach was reported as saying in or about the time of Deputy Kelly's question that Mr. Connolly would be allowed to give evidence? Is that not arrogance? Is he not entitled to give evidence?
First of all, Deputy Fitzpatrick is completely misrepresenting the situation. I really do not see why these matters have been raised at this stage in view of all that has happened.
Because this is supposed to be a democracy.
What I said was, and I am sure anybody who was in the House recalls it, that the gentleman referred to would not be one of the assessors on the tribunal, which is completely and totally different from giving evidence before the tribunal. I have never suggested otherwise and I repeat here that any person whom the tribunal wishes to hear will give evidence irrespective of whether or not he is in the public service. I repeat this is a travesty of the truth. I have never suggested anybody would not be allowed to give evidence.
"Would be allowed", the Taoiseach said.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Taoiseach said he would not be allowed.
Is not the suggestion that he would be allowed an admission——
I am sorry, Deputy. I am calling Question No. 2.
I deny I ever said to anybody that any particular person would or would not be allowed. I never used those words.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is in the newspapers and the Taoiseach did not contradict it.
What paper?
The Irish Times.
Is that accurate?
That is what I am trying to find out. Why does the Deputy not stand up and ask a supplementary?