Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I put it to the Minister that he is not in a position to say whether prisoners were transited because he never inspected the planes. When Senator Norris and I met two chief superintendents, they suggested that the legislation which transposed the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment into Irish law did not allow them to enter, inspect or arrest. That was the reason they did not inspect the planes. Later, in questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it became clear — as the Minister for Transport would know — that under civil aviation legislation, not just policemen but also anybody responsible for an aircraft could, in fact, have inspected the planes. The Minister did not inspect any planes. I read in detail his submission to the Council of Europe in which he fudged the issue of inspection. A further request was made and confirmed here for more information as regards the inspection. I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Were gardaí told not to inspect the planes and, if so, was it by a particular Department or the Director of Public Prosecutions? Why were the two complaints that were lodged not prosecuted?

I have one further question for the Minister. Does he not consider it significant that the independent Irish Human Rights Commission — which advises the Government on its human rights regime — on 23 December 2005 suggested "It is clear that the Government's position of unquestioningly accepting the assurances of a friendly nation is not sufficient to meet our obligations under international law." Is the Minister not concerned about that? Is he not concerned that the committee that exists to monitor the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has suggested that assurances are not sufficient because of the seriousness of torture and dehumanising and degrading punishments?

Is the Minister not concerned that several governments in Europe have said that the acceptance of assurances is not acceptable? Is it not the case that the Government is putting interest above principles of international law? How would it be unfriendly of the Government to suggest inspections to a friendly country if it was clearly stating that it wanted to be openly and transparently in accordance with international law? Why will the Minister not take action? He did not inspect any planes and he does not know what went through Shannon. He did not deal with the question of inspection in his questionnaire and he is not in a position to say whether these planes were used.

What was the plane doing, for example, that flew through Shannon to Rabat and on to Guantanamo? What about the aircraft that landed and then proceeded to Cairo where there were clearly proven breaches as regards the rights of one particular individual? Is the Minister not concerned that the numbers of the planes, in fact, match many of those that were involved in rendition?

To conclude, I have a very easy question for the Minister. Does he believe that the planes which are leased from the private sector by the CIA for these purposes are civilian aircraft? He, as Minister for Transport, is dealing with them as civilian aircraft under civil aviation legislation. Is this not absurd?

See this speech in context