Joe O'Toole (Independent)

It is crucially important for people to recognise that this country has a long tradition of honest, fair, peaceful and legal demonstrations. There were 100,000 people on the streets last year and 250,000 people on the streets in 1979 and there were never any difficulties. The only time there are difficulties is when there are small numbers. Nobody should be dissuaded from taking part. While 1 May is a celebration, I would defend to the death the right to protest, as did Fr. O'Brien and the Columban Fathers on similar issues throughout various parts of the world for as long as I can remember.

Yesterday the Cathaoirleach ruled on an issue raised. In the meantime, the Taoiseach, speaking in another place, indicated the Government's position on the Curtin case. He stated that the Government corresponded with the judge and asked him for a response. I would like to know whether that response will be made available to Members of both Houses because we need to have the full information.

It was stated on the "Nine o'clock News" last night that the Garda Commissioner, Noel Conroy, has made certain statements which should be made available to Members of the House. He indicated that a full report will be made available on the involvement of the gardaí. This is very important information which should be made available to us.

In the event of impeachment proceedings being contemplated, must such proceedings be initiated by the Government or is it open to individual Members or groups in the House to do so? The Cathaoirleach may not be able to respond to that inquiry immediately but I ask him to consider the issue because it is something of which we should be made aware.

Following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, we established the Human Rights Commission under legislation. Its job is clear — to ensure that what we do on this island complies with international human rights agreements which we have signed. When the Human Rights Commission issues a statement, as it did yesterday and will do in fuller form later this week, it hardly behoves the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to whom the commission is responsible, to describe it within an hour of its receipt as "weak, tendentious and fanciful" and to add to that this morning by describing it as "lacking intellectual integrity", particularly before he has even read the entire report. I wonder how people on the other side of the House feel about these comments. Do they feel as uncomfortable about such a contemptuous dismissal of the work of an extraordinary body of people upon which we rely and which we use to defend our actions as a State?

Will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform come before the House and debate the issue with us? I acknowledge we will be dealing with the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2004 on Friday but we must also examine this issue. The Human Rights Commission has stated that we will have different categories of non-citizens, which has nothing to do with the imperatives for an immigration policy. This is unacceptable.

Will the Leader also explain what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform means by the word "fanciful"? I looked the word up in the Oxford English Dictionary to find literary allusions or references to "fanciful" and I found references to "petticoats of too fanciful a fashion" and, in Uncle Tom's Cabin, a reference to Mrs. Stowe having a range of "fanciful diseases". I also found various other references including one to people having a "fanciful expression which is singular and will never be forgotten". What exactly did the Minister have in mind when he referred to the determined and serious conclusions of the Human Rights Commission report as "fanciful"? He should explain where he is coming from because he has been absolutely illogical and specious in what he has said so far. It is utterly unacceptable and it is the duty of this House to defend a group like the Human Rights Commission, which is working on behalf of this House and the people.