Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

As I stated previously, identification by NGOs and the media of aircraft — I can shout the Deputy down — that are alleged to have been involved in extraordinary rendition activity has been possible only months, at the earliest, after such operations are said to have taken place. Furthermore, civilian aircraft of the type in question are not, under international law, required to apply for permission to land, meaning that a transited country may have very little notice of the arrival of such an aircraft. In this context, a regime of random search and inspection would be of very limited value. Moreover, given that, at most, the allegations are that such aircraft passed empty through Ireland, it is impossible to see how even if such aircraft were to be identified and searched, the outcome of such searches would shed any light on the matter.

The Government's approach to the subject of extraordinary rendition is one of continued engagement with the United States. This approach has allowed us to raise our concerns in an early manner, both bilaterally and in an EU framework, to receive considered responses and, ultimately, the Government believes, to fulfil our obligations under international and domestic law in the most comprehensive way possible. This approach continues to prove its worth to this day, as seen by our continuing engagement in the EU-US legal framework, where we have taken a leading role in opposing the creation of any framework for extraordinary rendition.

I will turn to a recent, quite separate, incident at Shannon and how the Government reacted to it. As I set out in a press statement earlier today, at 5 p.m. yesterday my Department was contacted by the US Embassy and informed that on Sunday, 11 June, a civilian aircraft landed at Shannon Airport for a technical refuelling stop en route from Kuwait to the United States. Among other unarmed military personnel the plane was carrying a US Marine convicted of a minor breach of the US military code. He was in military custody and was wearing military fatigues.

While the transfer of such a prisoner would be lawful under international and domestic law, it requires the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but the US authorities did not seek such consent. This failure, though inadvertent, is unacceptable. Yesterday evening, upon my return from the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg, I was informed of these events and immediately summoned the US Ambassador to Iveagh House, where we met for the best part of an hour. I outlined our grave concerns. The ambassador confirmed the sequence of events and made clear that the failure to seek consent arose from an administrative error. He conveyed his deep regret for the breach of procedures and undertook urgently to advise his authorities of my views. He also confirmed his willingness to review the situation immediately with a view to ensuring that there is no recurrence.

In his statement this evening, which I welcome, the ambassador repeated what he said to me. At the end of the statement he said:

We are determined that any use of Irish airspace or Irish airports by U.S. military aircraft or chartered civilian aircraft be completely transparent and in conformity with Irish law and the wishes of the Irish Government. We look forward to continuing our discussions and cooperation with the Irish government to ensure that such incidents are not repeated and to maintaining the relationship of trust and openness that prevails between our two countries.

I informed the ambassador that, notwithstanding the fact that this incident had no connection with allegations of extraordinary rendition, it was unacceptable that it should happen.

I briefed the Cabinet this morning. Following our discussion, we decided to make public our grave concern. We have asked for a full written report from the US Embassy. In addition, to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent any recurrence of this incident, we will engage in further discussion with the US authorities on arrangements for notification and information sharing and the strengthening of verification procedures as necessary.

It has been the consistent position of the Government that no aircraft can use Shannon or any Irish airport for extraordinary rendition. We will not facilitate and have not facilitated extraordinary renditions. That is, and remains, our policy. We have always held that if the Government at any stage received hard evidence of extraordinary rendition we would act upon it and expect the Garda Síochána to act upon it, a position I repeated yesterday in an interview I gave to a journalist in Luxembourg.

While I reiterate that this incident is unconnected to allegations of extraordinary rendition, it is essential, not least in the interests of public confidence, that the Government takes appropriate steps in response to such a breach, and this is what we have done.

I wish to make a number of points about this most regrettable incident. First, it is clearly a matter of grave concern when any legal procedure is breached. I acted immediately to summon the ambassador and conveyed our very strong views, which he took fully on board. Second, it is important that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that, so far as is possible, there is no recurrence of such an incident. That is what the Government is doing. We appreciate that there is a wider question of public confidence and we hope that these steps will offer further reassurance that we are doing what we can.

If further specific proposals are made regarding the international regulation of civilian aircraft in particular, we will carefully examine these with our partners, whether in the Council of Europe context or otherwise. However, at the same time, it is important to keep what happened in perspective. This was a simple mistake, a regrettable mistake, but still a mistake. This was in no way an act or an attempted act of extraordinary rendition or related to such an act. Indeed, the Attorney General has confirmed that, quite unlike extraordinary rendition, which is illegal in all circumstances, there is nothing substantively unlawful about such a transfer, provided that ministerial consent has been obtained. It was not in this case.

The prisoner was not a suspected terrorist from a third country but a US Marine duly found guilty under the US military code of a minor offence. We understand from the US Embassy that to transport him back to the United States to serve his sentence, the local military authorities simply placed him on the earliest convenient flight. They apparently, according to the ambassador, were simply unaware that our consent was required and the embassy was also unaware of the flight until after the event. Obviously it should have been aware, and this information gap is one of the things that we expect the US to remedy immediately. I also suggest that carrying a prisoner through a busy civilian airport, where apparently he was visible in plain sight, hardly suggests that this was some covert operation.

The Government is fully aware of the seriousness of this episode and has acted immediately to take a range of steps with a view to preventing its recurrence. At the same time, what it was and what it was not should be clear. A sense of proportion is needed. This administrative error does not call into question the fundamental importance and reliability of the assurances we have received in the context of extraordinary rendition.

The Government's position on the issue of extraordinary rendition is, therefore, quite clear. We utterly condemn it, we in no way facilitate it and we are willing, with our partners, to consider carefully any practicable and specific proposals which the Council of Europe, the European Parliament or any other body may make to reduce the possibility of future cases occurring. At the same time, we do not accept that we have failed to meet our obligations. We utterly reject allegations of collusion, either passive or active, with this practice. I believe we have done and are doing all that is possible and practicable.

See this speech in context