Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House on this important day on two fronts. I understand this is the first commission of investigation to be established since the legislation went through this and the other House. When the Minister put forward his proposals in this whole area, he gave a firm commitment that there would be an investigation into clerical sex abuse in the Dublin area. It is significant that the matter concerning the entire episode around the late Mr. Dean Lyons will be the first issue to be tested. We are, in effect, going into uncharted waters in respect of the commission of investigation which was the Minister's proposal. It will be a good way of investigation in the future, primarily because much of the work will be carried out in private, thereby reducing costs and not requiring a whole battery of lawyers arguing over every scintilla, comma and statement. I wish the commission well. It is a very important day for the family of the late Dean Lyons who come from my part of Dublin, an area I represented in the other House for five years. They have been looking forward to this day for some time. As the Minister said at the outset, it has taken eight years to get to this point.

The point should also be made that we are not talking here about events in the 1960s, 1970s or the 1980s. We are talking about recent events. This entire saga began as recently as 1997. That is why it is so important for the commission — the sole member of which will be Mr. George Birmingham, SC, whom I wish well as I am sure all Members do — to get to the truth as soon as possible. The Minister said that, when published, he hopes the report he envisaged will come to some clear conclusions and findings.

While we are not talking about a case equivalent to the Birmingham six or the Guildford four, because in both cases there was a conviction, and this case never reached a conviction stage, there is a similarity between the cases because Dean Lyons was stitched up. He was a homeless young man who was caught up in the whole drugs scene. His life was ruined as a result of drugs. He just happened to be homeless, living in and around the Grangegorman area, close to the time of the savage murder of Sylvia Shiels and Mary Callinan. As the Minister rightly said, we are talking about two tragedies, the tragedy of the stitch-up of Mr. Lyons and what happened thereafter and the appalling murders of Sylvia Shiels and Mary Callinan.

Major issues must be dealt with by Mr. Birmingham and the commission concerning Garda discipline and the methodology of investigation by the gardaí at the time. These questions remain unanswered in the public domain as a result of the treatment meted out to the late Dean Lyons in 1997. Dean Lyons was an easy target. He was homeless and had an addiction problem. He was someone who had a chaotic lifestyle, yet he was easy prey for people who wanted to charge him for a crime he did not commit.

It is important to state that the double murder of Sylvia Shiels and Mary Callinan happened in March 1997, but by July of that year, through routes yet to be determined, Dean Lyons signed a confession. A number of questions flow from this. The forensic psychiatrists at the time had warned the gardaí that the Grangegorman killer would strike again. We know that in August 1997, the tragic case of the murder of Carl and Catherine Doyle was brought to public attention. That led to the arrest and conviction of Mr. Mark Nash who then signed voluntary admissions to the Grangegorman killings. As the Minister said, he has since withdrawn these statements. It is important to state that the evidence to the gardaí at the time, through their own professional services, was that the Grangegorman killer would strike again. We still do not know the full identity of the Grangegorman killer. As the Minister said, the case remains concerning both named individuals who were brutally murdered in 1997. I presume someone is at large for that particular crime. All of these matters must be determined ultimately if there is a court case and an active investigation remains.

A number of questions must be put on the record arising from this case. Why did Dean Lyons remain in prison until April 1998 when it was clear charges would have to be dropped? He spent a total of eight months in Mountjoy Prison from the time of his alleged confession to these crimes to April 1998. He remained in prison for that eight month period and we still have not received any explanation either from the Chief State Solicitor or the gardaí as to why this was allowed to happen when it was clear to the gardaí at the time that he had no involvement in the crime. Second, the internal Garda investigation that followed all of these matters coming to public attention has never been published. The question must be asked, why was it not clear from the circumstances that prevailed in 1997-98 that something had gone badly wrong and action had to be taken? Why did it take four years for a full apology to be given to the Lyons family? In 2004, the Garda took out newspaper advertisements apologising for the suffering caused to the Lyons family as a result of the whole case. Why did it take so long for the apology to be issued when it was clear in 1998 that something had gone so seriously wrong? The question must also be asked — I am sure it will be set out clearly in the course of the commission's work — why did the details of the Grangegorman killing end up in Dean Lyons' statement to which he put his name in 1997? There were considerable and detailed issues in his false statement that only someone who had prior knowledge of the case could include, because clearly Mr. Lyons did not have the information when he signed the statement.

Many other questions must ultimately be asked by the commission. However, the fact of the matter is that Dean Lyons died at 27 years of age in a friend's flat in England after an appalling miscarriage of justice. The State and this House have an obligation to get to the truth of the matter. Today's proceedings are the first step along that road.

Yesterday, the Minister changed his terms of reference to include the word "supportive", which we welcome. If it is the case that the commission needs an alteration to the terms of reference, can it make this fact known to the Minister, who may then have to change the terms of reference in both Houses?