Since I last raised, in this House, the matter of the Stardust tragedy and its aftermath there have been a number of developments. There has been progress in some areas and I would like to be able to say that everything is now going well but I cannot. In recent months considerable progress was made in processing the cases which are before the High Court and a number of these have now been set down for hearing. On that point I should like to know why the State found it necessary to resort to some kind of legal device in regard to the discovery of documents to hold up these cases when we are assured by everybody that the State is entirely sympathetic to the position of the families and the victims.
All Deputies will have received a letter from Jimmy Fitzpatrick, one of the people concerned, in which he mentions that point. However, it is fair to say that after a very long delay the cases are now apparently being brought nearer to settlement in the High Court. Then we had the announcement of this new tribunal and, at first sight, this seemed to be the solution, the answer to all our prayers. I was very relieved when I heard about it and I am sure that many other people who are concerned and involved in the Stardust aftermath were also very happy to hear of this development. Unfortunately, since it was announced it has been proved not to be so and it is no longer clear that it is the solution which we all thought it might offer. It no longer provides the solution which we all thought it might.
It is clear that it was something which was done fairly hastily. I am not complaining about that, but this matter has dragged on so long and is of such importance and complexity that I do not think it is something which should have been so precipitately announced. The solicitors of the families concerned were not, as far as I know, consulted in any way. In fact, the Attorney General and the Taoiseach seemed to go over the heads of the legal advisers of the Stardust families. Maybe that was all right, perhaps it was thought necessary to try to get immediate action and to deal directly with the people concerned. I do not say anything in criticism of that, but it might have been wiser if the matter had been announced to the solicitors and processes through them, maybe going direct to the families at the same time. It was done by way of press statement, which is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a matter of this kind. However, allowing for that, we all still hoped that this was the answer.
As the situation developed, after the first announcement, questions were asked and doubts raised. These questions were asked in all good faith and the doubts were expressed validly and legitimately. The families and their legal representatives began to probe the situation regarding the tribunal and how it would operate, what their situation would be before the tribunal and also what the position would be in regard to their ongoing cases before the High Court. Now whatever about the legal advisers and the solicitors, I know that members of the Stardust committee became increasingly confused. Then the scheme was laid before this house by the Minister for Justice on 22 October which happened to be the day before the Dáil re-assembled and the day before a question by me about this matter was tabled in the House. That may have been coincidental but, as I said, it was laid on the table of the House and also sent to the committee.
At this stage I ask the Minister to consider this situation. We now have three official people involved, the Taoiseach who announced the tribunal, the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. There are an awful lot of documents around at this stage. First, there is the press statement by the Attorney General, there is subsequent correspondence between the legal advisers of the claimants and the Chief State Solicitor and between the legal advisers and members of the Stardust committee and so on. As I say, there was the original press statement and there was a certain amount of elaboration on it by the Chief State Solicitor and then the scheme placed on the table of the House by the Minister for Justice.
I am fairly experienced in dealing with documents of one kind or another, particularly parliamentary documents and even legal documents over the years, but I have found it difficult to keep up with the documentation emanating in regard to this situation. I had to consult eminent legal people to try to establish what exactly is what because I reiterate, for the benefit of the Minister, that there are a number of different documents involved, a number of different questions asked and a number of different answers being given.
I do not know how the individual members of the committee and the families concerned can be expected to come to grips with and understand the situation and try to decide what they should do. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Stardust victims' committee and the families were dealing with their legal representatives and carrying on their business with them. Then the Attorney General in his scheme decided to deal directly with them so I do not know how they are expected, as non-professional people, to cope with this fairly complex legal situation with which they have been presented. Anyway, I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that the outcome of all this is that the committee have now decided that they will not go before the tribunal. That is a very unhappy development but I think it is understandable because I am afraid that the individuals concerned are not too clear on what exactly they should do in their own best interests. They have waited a long time and they have suffered a great deal. I am certain they would have very much liked to bring it all to an end, to go before the tribunal and to get the compensation at whatever level they were entitled.
I should like to tell the Minister why I think they have decided not to go before the tribunal. Some of the families individually may go before the tribunal but the position of the committee representing the majority of the people concerned is that they have decided not to go before it. They regard the latest scheme published by the Minister and laid before the House as very unsatisfactory from their point of view for a number of reasons. At this stage I leave out of the matter entirely the question of whether their legal advisers would have difficulties with the scheme: I think they would have. I just want to try to give the Minister the picture as the committee and the families see it.
First, there is a problem about the definition of "victim". That may be all right but I am not sure. The tribunal may take a broad view of that definition and it may cover all the people we would like to cover, but it is a question that remains. The major difficulty is the costs of the defendants of the existing actions. If one of the families or individuals goes before the tribunal and accepts the compensation award made by the tribunal, those costs will be paid for to a certain extent by the tribunal in that the compensation given can include a figure for costs. However, the crucial difficulty is that the tribunal cannot award them anything for the costs of the defendants.
The Minister will understand that practically all the people are taking High Court actions and there are defendants — the State, Dublin Corporation and the Butterly companies. If the people concerned accept the award from the tribunal, the tribunal cannot give them anything in respect of the defendants' costs and if the defendants proceed for those costs then the result from the point of view of the individual claimants would be disastrous. The position there is not clear. Presumably the State could waive its costs as a defendant. I am told that Dublin Corporation cannot waive their costs, although we might be able to do something about that at corporation level and nobody knows what the Butterly companies will do. One way or another each claimant would be liable for the costs of defendants in existing High Court actions and that is something that is of crucial importance. One of the legal advisers has given me an estimate of at least £11,000 in respect of these people and that is something that has to be taken into account. In any event, whatever compensation an individual may get from the tribunal there will be an immediate deduction from it of some costs in the case of existing defendants.
Another new element has entered the picture arising out of the scheme tabled in this House by the Minister for Justice. There was no reference to it by the Attorney General previously. I am referring to social welfare benefits. There will be a deduction for any compensation awarded by the tribunal in respect of social welfare benefits paid to these families. I understand that is not the way in cases settled by the High Court. Compensation is awarded by the High Court without regard to social welfare benefits. There is another provision that the compensation paid to an individual victim or family can also be reduced by salaries or wages paid to that person. These two proposed reductions are crucial and they render the whole scheme very unattractive from the point of view of an individual who may decide to go before the tribunal.
The Minister's scheme states clearly that matters will be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Act dealing with civil liability. I am told that is very restrictive. It seems to me that in the case of at least some families all they would be able to get under that provision would be £7,500 for emotional distress. That is another inhibiting factor on the tribunal and how it can deal with these cases.
Another element has come into the picture which has upset the families very much. If a claimant goes before the tribunal, brings his legal adviser and counsel as he is entitled to do, is made an award that in his or her view is unsatisfactory and does not accept that award, then the claimant will be responsible for the costs before the tribunal. That is absolutely unacceptable. If we want to encourage the people to go before the tribunal and get their cases settled, that provision should not be applicable. By going before the tribunal claimants would run the risk of getting an award they could not accept and make themselves liable for considerable costs.
There is another question mark in the minds of the families and the committee, namely, that if they wish to go before the tribunal whether or not they get an award they will have to drop any claim before the criminal injuries tribunal. That does not apply in the High Court. There individual claimants will have freedom of action so far as their case before that court is concerned. They will have the option of going before the tribunal and accepting the award or not accepting it. If they do not accept it they can still continue before the High Court. However, if they go before this tribunal they will be stopped from going before the criminal injuries tribunal. That is something that is of great concern and worry to the people.
Another statement has been made by the Chief State Solicitor, namely, that if a claimant goes before the tribunal, is made an award that is not satisfactory, refuses to accept it, goes back to the High Court and proceeds with his or her case before that court the State will continue to contest liability in the High Court. That is a totally absurd situation for the State. On the one hand, in setting up the tribunal to provide compensation for these victims, the State is thereby accepting and acknowledging that they have a case and are entitled to compensation but, on the other hand, if they go back to the High Court the State will continue to contest such cases.
I mention all these things to the Minister in good faith. I wish to tell him that these are matters that are obtruding themselves and disturbing the committee representing the victims and the majority of the families, as I understand it. I would dearly like to be able to say to the committee — a very sincere and able group of people who have given this matter great care, study and consideration — to go before the tribunal. I would like to be able to tell them to take a chance in the knowledge that the tribunal will treat them fairly and generously. I think their legal advisers would like to be able to say the same thing to them but we cannot do that. As a person who is involved in this matter, much as I would like to I cannot advise that committee or any individual family to go before the tribunal, in the knowledge that all will be well and that they will get reasonable treatment and generous compensation. There are too many anomalies, question marks and difficulties, particularly the matter of the defendants' costs, the High Court actions, social welfare benefits and matters of that kind.
This has gone on for a long time. We were all fairly elated when the tribunal was announced and there is now an enormous feeling of let down. These people have been through a lot and they are very near the end of their tether. There is great agony, anger, frustration and sometimes despair. Could we not at this stage bring this matter to finality, arrange a meeting between the Minister or the Attorney General or whoever and the committee representing the families and their legal advisers, and try to straighten out all these difficulties and bring about a situation where we can advise them to go to the tribunal with an easy mind?
