Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

The adequacy of such assurances must be assessed in the context of the observation of international law by the sovereign state involved. It is the common view of those interested in international law that assurances of the type the Minister has received and accepts are not sufficient as positive compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.

We now have two positions. When the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform answered questions in this Chamber, he said he was against torture. I accept that the Government would be against the commission of torture. However, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000 was invoked by two Garda superintendents to me and another Member of the Oireachtas. They said that they had no powers under that Act to enter or search the aircraft in question or to arrest anyone.

The third paragraph on page one of the questionnaire, which was sent back to the Council of Europe, states that the Garda Síochána's powers of search and inspection extend to civil aircraft of the type cited in allegations about extraordinary rendition. Which version is correct? How can the Garda Síochána and the DPP be wrong?

I would welcome the Government's position if it were factual but gardaí have not boarded planes or sought to obtain evidence. In response to our questions, we are always told that if we have evidence, we should give it to the Garda Síochána. The extensive questionnaire that has been sent back to the Council of Europe says that under Article 40 of the Constitution concerning the deprivation of liberty, the Garda Síochána has common powers under the 1998 civil aviation legislation.

If one wants to be fully compliant and positive in implementing the UN Convention Against Torture, it is not sufficient to accept assurances. It is also insufficient not to have investigations, be they sporadic or regular.

See this speech in context