I wish to return to the Stardust issue that was raised yesterday. I presume the Taoiseach, like most Members, watched the programme last night. The Taoiseach made a commitment yesterday that if new evidence came forward, he and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were prepared to review it. There is no necessity for me to describe the horror of what was depicted in an example of the best of public service broadcasting. Whatever the apprehensions about the programmes before they were screened, nobody can say that as a documentary drama it was not an excellent contribution to public service broadcasting. We have a duty in this House to protect the safety of citizens and where their rights are abrogated, we have a duty to see some fair procedure to vindicate those rights.

On reflection, what is the Taoiseach's position today? Just because the programmes are finished, we should not pass over this issue again as we have done so many times in the past. Yesterday, I suggested that perhaps the speediest, most effective way to deal with the legitimate questions raised by the families would be to borrow the practice followed in the Dean Lyons case. A senior counsel might be appointed by the Minister to review the Garda files and the papers available to the tribunal, to assess any new evidence, to assess the significance of last night's programme and to make recommendations to the Minister. Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to reflect on that? This is a cheap, speedy, effective and sufficient way to establish whether there is a basis to believe that another investigation would be more effective.

There were two new experts introduced last night. We did not know there was a difference of expert opinion at the tribunal. I do not know what weight colleagues in the House give to the programme, but there was sufficient concern raised by two independent experts with no axe to grind to suggest the relatives have a fair claim to have some procedure open to them whereby they can seek answers to questions that have remained unanswered to date. The Taoiseach should agree to the suggestion I made yesterday. The senior counsel should have access to the kind of technical fire advice that we saw on the programme last night and he could then bring conclusions to the Minister.

The programmes are useful and are good examples of public service broadcasting. There is no doubt about that. I also think the recent work of the Stardust relatives committee has been good. The first part of that work was examined by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Garda Síochána and the Forensic Science Laboratory. They concluded, following expert analysis, that nothing new had emerged that was not dealt with in the long public inquiry by the Keane tribunal in 1981-82.

Further evidence was provided by the relatives more recently and the Minister gave a full commitment that this would also be dealt with. That is still outstanding and must be dealt with. I understand RTE will helpfully provide the programme details and data to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which must also be fully examined. I said I would meet the relatives and I note that they intend to contact me at the end of the week. Whatever issues arise from that meeting, including issues relating to technology and DNA, I will be happy to examine them.

It is not a question of forgetting about these matters. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his predecessor had a series of meetings over a number of years. Developments have not stopped. They may have stopped in the public domain but not with regard to the relatives of the Stardust committee. They have been through a long series of meetings. There are three separate issues involved, as I and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform understand it, and they will be examined and a conclusion drawn as to what action is necessary.

To be frank with Deputy Rabbitte, I cannot make a conclusion as to whether issues of design, location of the fire or where it may have started constitute new evidence. I will not agree or disagree with that as I just do not know. However, it is valuable information to be examined by those who can make an assessment in that regard. I can make sure that happens and we will then see where we go from there.

I agree with the Taoiseach that he cannot make a conclusion about the design of the building or the cause of the fire, whether it was arson or accident. None of us in the House can do that. However, on a different issue, is the Taoiseach prepared to put in process some review that can quickly report to the relevant Minister whether there is a basis for further investigation. I am not clear from the Taoiseach's answer what is his response to that. He stated this matter was reviewed over many years by the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The previous Minister was in office for five years. Deputy Broughan raised this matter on the 20th anniversary. Five years later, after the Minister had left office, absolutely nothing was done.

The Taoiseach has not met the relatives and the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, present or past, did not do so. What is the Taoiseach saying to the relatives following the screening of the three programmes on this issue, given the sense of miscarriage of justice which is deeply felt by many of the relatives?

The Deputy's time is concluded.

Why is the Taoiseach not in a position to state he will put in train, for example, the kind of investigation that I suggested or that Deputy Kenny suggested yesterday in terms of the Judge Cory-type precedent? Surely we can do that to meet the genuine concerns of the relatives.

The Taoiseach did not state yesterday — I read the transcript again because I sometimes have as much difficulty as his backbenchers in interpreting what he says — why the Government decided against a national fire authority, which was the key recommendation of the Keane tribunal. He brought in consultants and they recommended a national fire authority as the key recommendation, yet the Taoiseach never explained why he decided against it. In today's newspapers fire officers in Dublin state there is the same number of fire safety inspectors as in 1981 and express fears that must be in the mind of every citizen about whether this could happen again. There is no answer to that either. Why did the Taoiseach decide not to set up a national fire authority? Will he appoint somebody, along the lines of the precedent in the Dean Lyons case, to establish whether there is any hope that a new investigation would reach different conclusions in regard to this appalling tragedy?

The recommendations on the fire safety issues were made in 1982. I will not answer for all the policy initiatives from 1982, but more recently an implementation group considered these initiatives and I understand the group has considered the issue of the authority. I cannot say why that did not happen for 20 years. It was decided at the time not to go down that road but more recently the implementation group examined the original recommendation.

I will not repeat the figures I outlined yesterday except to state that there are 34 fire prevention staff working in Dublin compared to four at that time.

I heard the relatives speak on last night's television programme and they were very clear on what I said in the House, for which I was glad, but for the benefit of Deputy Rabbitte I will be clear on this matter again. There are three issues. First, the relatives gave further information to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and asked him to have it examined. That process is under way. The Minister has given clear commitments to the relatives that as soon as he receives the report from the Garda Síochána and the Forensic Science Laboratory, he will communicate with them. The second issue concerns the television programmes and issues that have arisen in the past few weeks, most of which were reflected in the programmes and others in what the relatives have said. Those matters will be examined in a way similar to the Minister's consideration of the committee's recommendations. RTE will helpfully provide background details. Third, some unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the use of DNA and modern science. It is believed that to exhume the bodies of the deceased would perhaps help. Other questions also arise and all those issues will be examined.

The Minister has stated time and again and I stated yesterday and repeat today that we will assist the families in any way we can in regard to further submissions the Stardust committee wishes to make and the information that has been made available. If there is an issue with regard to a further investigation, whether it is a Judge Cory-type investigation or another type, we can make the relevant decisions. I cannot pre-empt that process. I will not go against Garda or Forensic Science Laboratory advice, or that of whoever else it is necessary to get advice from. However, we should at least get the advice and then we will make a judgment on it.