I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the unimaginable horror that befell a working class community in north Dublin 26 years ago tonight. As I understand it, the families of the Stardust victims will hold a vigil outside the gates of Dáil Éireann tonight. This relates to their conviction that a number of legitimate questions remain unanswered about the tragedy that befell their community and about what happened on the night. I thank the Government for the fact that the exhumation sought by the relatives has happened, although it has taken a very long time.

Going back over the record of the House when my colleague, Deputy Broughan, raised this issue on so many occasions, I looked at what the Taoiseach said in 2001. The answers we have been getting since then are exactly the same as the Taoiseach told him in 2001. This time last year we raised this issue in the belief that the response from the Government would be different on that occasion. This followed on the preparation of a dossier by lawyers on behalf of the relatives of the victims and a television programme which was a particularly good example of public service broadcasting by "Prime Time" which looked at the destruction of 48 young lives that night, the subsequent tribunal which found that the forensic protection of the site was inadequate and at the danger the tribunal was misled as to the layout of the premises and, therefore, possibly misled as to the cause of the fire. The fact of whether the fire was arson or accident was fundamentally material. The first persons compensated were the owners of the premises concerned.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

The Taoiseach committed last year, in questions since, and as recently as 14 December 2006 to my colleague, Deputy Broughan, that his response to the relatives after all these years was imminent. They had expected that response before Christmas. There has been no response. I understand there was subsequent contact between the Taoiseach's office and lawyers on behalf of the victims' relatives and that, as a result, they understood he was about to forward to them terms of reference for an independent, external examination. Those terms of reference have not been forthcoming. I do not know what is the hold-up nor do I know what kind of inquiry is proposed. Will the Taoiseach indicate what kind of inquiry is proposed?

The Deputy's time is concluded.

Is a prominent senior counsel or retired judicial figure going in as I requested to review the papers, the tribunal report and the dossiers submitted on behalf of the relatives and will he have the back-up of the necessary technical expertise to do his job? Why have replies not been given to the relatives? What kind of inquiry is the Taoiseach contemplating and when will they be replied to?

I have answered questions in the House on this issue a number of times. In fairness, Deputies Rabbitte and Broughan, and other Members of the House, have raised it with me as well, including Members on my own side. Tonight is the anniversary of the fire of St. Valentine's Day of 1981 which resulted in 48 deaths and 200 people injured. It was an overwhelming tragedy which left an enduring mark on the city and a generation and certainly on a considerable number of people in Coolock and surrounding areas.

I have tried extremely hard in recent years, particularly in the past year, to try to progress this matter which dates back a quarter of a century. I met the Stardust Victims' Committee. I have had numerous contacts with it over the years through various groupings within the families affected and we discussed their concerns. There are two main issues. When I took up this matter last year they were to prepare a report and I was to have meetings with the group prior to the summer. Because the report was not ready the meeting was postponed to September which was six months later. I add this fact about when we received the documentation, for the benefit of Deputy Rabbitte.

The group focused on two issues, namely, the completion of the identification of the five young men interred together at Sutton and, second, they asked that the State would undertake a further inquiry into the cause of the fire. In close consultation with the bereaved families, we have embarked on a process which I hope will lead to the identification of the five victims following the exhumations last week and the taking of DNA samples from the victims and relatives. I am confident we will be able to provide identification of their lost members with certainty for the families in the coming months. This has been a difficult and protracted period. I thank everybody involved, especially the families, for their patience and assistance in the carrying out of this process.

In regard to the campaign for a new inquiry into the cause of the fire, we acknowledge the significant achievement of the families with their solicitor, Mr. Greg O'Neill, in compiling the report — Nothing but the Truth. It was indicated in December to the Stardust Victims' Committee that we would be satisfied to arrange for an independent and external examination of the submission by a person with suitable legal experience. I am not sure when, but this was an issue into which Deputy Rabbitte asked me to inquire in a debate in the House. Officials of my Department are engaged with the solicitor of the families to bring forward an appropriate procedure and timetable for the work.

If necessary, I will go into the detail of all that is involved but I do not think it is. However, if Deputy Rabbitte wishes, I will do so. The consideration of the submission received from the families will involve a careful examination of the several issues raised with regard to the original inquiry and the significance of certain scientific evidence that has been brought under review. This examination calls for a specialised and professional judgment. It is not a policy consideration.

Let me be clear about my position, I remember the horror of the events of that terrible night. I met many of the bereaved families on that night and over the years. I was the administrator in the Mater Hospital on-call that night. When we met in September, I told them I would support proposals for action that would offer significant prospects for success. This was the case with regard to the identification procedure for the five young men. Actions have followed swiftly, a process that is under way and moving to completion. The potential of a new inquiry was not evident to the same extent but I am satisfied enough to have the matter considered further and to offer support to the families in pursuing it. This includes helping them through the process of making legal arrangements.

I am confident that arrangements for the examination will be settled in the coming days. This will be followed quickly by the appointment of an examiner. I suggested an eminent person but this person was not satisfactory. We can reach agreement on this and on terms of reference. I am conscious of the anniversary of the tragedy and the intention to hold a vigil outside Leinster House tonight to remind us of the loss and the enduring concerns. I acknowledge that and sympathise with the families. We extend our deepest sympathies to those who suffered as a result of the Stardust disaster.

Some 26 years later, I do not wish to publish terms of reference that have not been agreed by the legal representatives. The terms of reference must concern the issues raised by the families and their interpretation of what happened. There is no new evidence, just a new interpretation.

That is not true.

I have dealt with the senior and key people involved in this matter.

I ask Deputy Broughan to allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption. It is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

They are camping out tonight because the Taoiseach has not dealt with this, just like so many other things.

I do not wish to play politics with this matter. I spoke with Deputy Broughan in the corridor last week and allowed him to speak with my officials. If the Deputy wants to play politics with the matter, there is no point in me trying to deal with it here. He knows——

I am not playing politics. It is one year later.

No, it is not. I spoke to the Deputy last week and he spoke to my officials. He knows the situation and I ask him not to play politics with the matter. I am doing my best to resolve it and I will do that.

People felt like this ten years ago.

Yes, and they felt like this 26 years ago. I am trying to ensure they do not feel the same in 26 years' time. I am trying to resolve it in a manner suggested by Deputy Broughan's party leader. I cannot go against the State's forensic scientists and reopen an investigation. I can only do so on the interpretation of the evidence, as suggested by Deputy Rabbitte, and I am prepared to do so.

These people are emotive and it is difficult. I do my best to deal with the families and have provided resources to their legal representatives. I have undergone the trauma they have gone through in dealing with the exhumations. I do not wish to publish terms of reference to which people will object five minutes later. I am trying to get agreement so there can be closure. Otherwise, it will go on forever. My best and most senior officials and forensic scientists are dealing with this and we are trying to conclude it.

The Taoiseach said that he received the dossier in September. I have a copy of the letter, dated 6 July 2006, that accompanied the dossier. While I do not seek to make an issue of it, this dossier was compiled in the first half of the year and submitted on 6 July, but the families still do not have a reply.

I am trying to tease out what kind of inquiry the Taoiseach envisages. When will the terms of reference, which have been promised to the lawyers for the group in question but have not materialised, be made available? I do not wish to create expectations that cannot deliver some comfort to the relatives of the victims. I do not know the judgment on the dossier submitted.

However, some of the people concerned believe the Taoiseach has committed in principle to an inquiry. I am trying to find out what kind of inquiry. This time last year I suggested appointing a senior judicial person or a senior counsel to review the papers, the tribunal report and the forensic knowledge about fires now available. That person should have technical international expertise available to him or her in preparing a report for the Minister concerned.

People will camp out tonight who have suffered for very many years in the belief that they did not receive justice at the time. What does "independent and external investigation" mean? When will the Department deliver the terms of reference of the proposed independent external investigation to the lawyers acting on behalf of the relatives of the 48 young people who lost their lives in this tragedy in 1981?

My officials have already suggested an eminent legal person and terms of reference to the families and their representatives. We seek agreement on both. The person we suggested has carried out a number of inquiries for the State but the families will not accept that person. My officials have had the terms of reference ready for some considerable time but will not publish them until discussion with Mr. Greg O'Neill, the individual we have been dealing with for the past few years. A senior official told me he hopes to conclude this shortly. There is no blame on either side but it is a matter of seeking agreement.

While the submission was given to me in July, legal representatives were not available until after the summer break. The submission has received careful consideration. It raised several matters regarding the original inquiry and the significance of scientific evidence that has been reviewed. The examination concerns specialised professional judgments on forensic and engineering issues. A forensic scientist attended the examination. This is not a policy matter; it is a matter of specialised professional judgment. For better or for worse, a full tribunal was held on this matter at the time. I am not in a position to judge but the expert opinion is that there is nothing new in what was presented by the families. There is a different interpretation of events and specialists are examining it.

The independent inquiry would, in the first instance, consider the evidence presented by the families and their legal representatives to see if they are correct in their judgments. If they are, perhaps a full inquiry would be required. If they are wrong, the original report would stand. The person who examines the papers would have to be a legal person, either a senior counsel or a retired judge.

The person I recommended is an eminent senior counsel who has done a considerable amount of other examinations and investigations and has much knowledge of the area and the circumstances. I continue to regard that person as suitable but if that is not the case we will await another consideration and see what comes forward in that examination.

If the individual who examines these issues wants to look further I have no problem with that. I am advised that in the first place it should be an examination of the case put forward by the families and their legal representatives on the issues they have raised, as against what was considered at the time in the full inquiry. If there is another issue to examine I will not rule it out because I do not want anybody to say I ruled everything out. I am trying to be as open as possible and to find terms of reference that can allow that to happen. Then we can make real progress in this matter. I appreciate the fact that the House is endeavouring to convince the people involved that this marks considerable progress on what has happened over 26 years and that it could be concluded calmly. I understand the hurt involved but if we could deal with it calmly we could tie this down quickly and leave it to take its course.