Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

That is something the Minister's colleagues cannot say.

I wish to turn to some of the fundamentals of this matter. Given that we are talking about basic principles of international law, one of those that has evolved, and includes all the family of nations in regard to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, is whether and how we are compliant. The issue revolves around whether we can be satisfied with the diplomatic assurances.

Those who suggest we should not be satisfied with diplomatic assurances include the Secretary General of the Council of Europe; the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Irish Human Rights Commission, which advised the Government to this effect last December; the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which comprises legal experts who advise signatories on how to comply with their legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights; and the temporary committee of the European Parliament. However, we are saying that none of these opinions matters. What matters is the assurance we received from the United States Government. It is such a valuable assurance it has never been put in writing, but it is apparently categorical and specific. We were told today that we are the only state to receive such an assurance but yesterday we were informed that three other countries enjoyed the same benefit.

I wish to correct something the Minister for Foreign Affairs said yesterday in reference to his correspondence with the Irish Human Rights Commission. On the question of the relevance of diplomatic assurances, he suggested the assurance we got from the United States is different to those arising in the two specific cases stated before the European court. Interestingly, the Minister did not refer to the Agiza case upon which he was specifically asked to comment by the Irish Human Rights Commission. Why will he not comment on this case, where the Egyptian Government gave specific assurances to the Swedish Government, including an assurance that the Swedish ambassador could visit Mr. Agiza in Egypt? These assurances were not honoured. Because it suited them to do so, the Minister and his advisers dropped the Agiza case from their correspondence with the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Minister did not refer to it yesterday.

A fundamental issue is at stake. In its approach to diplomatic assurances, the Government seems to say it is only necessary to dispose of such assurances when they are shown to be unsound. This means it is necessary to decide whether diplomatic assurances fit the issues in question. I am willing to accept the Government's good faith in many matters. Moreover, I accept it may well have raised the issue of extraordinary rendition with the United States Government.

However, the Government is required under its positive, non-derogational obligations to do more than rely on diplomatic assurances on an issue such as this, which involves the snatching of individuals. We must bear in mind the reality of every step in this process, from the moment of apprehension to the moment of detention, the destruction of habeas corpus and the absence of legal provision. It involves launching a person into an indeterminate disciplinary process and subjecting them to an uncertain detention. It has been established by one international lawyer after another that enforced disappearance is the equivalent of torture.

To ensure we are not complicit in this process, we must establish a regime that enforces three standards in this area. First, we must investigate what has been taking place in the past two years. Second, any permission given in regard to civilian, military or state aircraft must include a requirement that the recipient be in full compliance with international human rights law. Third, a system of monitoring and inspection must be in place to ensure we fulfil our human rights obligations. That is the substance of the motion we are discussing.

It is important to clarify that civilian aircraft are not immune. There is nothing in the Chicago Convention to prevent us from investigating civilian aircraft. This is an important issue but we have heard nothing of it from the Government benches. When is a civilian aircraft not a civilian aircraft? I understand the CIA leases 33 aeroplanes and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, has told us that some of them landed at Shannon Airport 15 or 20 times. We know the so-called "Guantanamo express" landed there 15 times.

We were not told yesterday, however, what any of these aeroplanes were doing when they landed at Shannon Airport. Instead, we got a type of theological argument to the effect that if the authorities had boarded the aeroplane and found no detainees, we would have wasted our time and that the subsequent discovery of the presence of a detainee would be, in any case, merely something that had taken place in the past. We know the flight plans of these aircraft from Euro Satellite information. We are aware that four of them were involved in extraordinary rendition.

I do not contend that Mr. al-Masri and others were on board when the aeroplanes landed in Shannon Airport. The question is whether we were part of the process of rendition. If the aeroplane that lands at Shannon Airport is returning home from a rendition task, does its presence at Shannon mean we are complicit in that task? The Government has taken refuge in the claim that the onus is on civilians to show there has been a breach of the law. According to international law, however, the obligation falls not on the civilian but on the state. Under domestic law, the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988 and the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 give the State the capacity to take action in this regard. It is confusing that the Garda has investigated two out of five United States aeroplanes landing at Shannon Airport, asked cleaners and mechanics whether they noticed anything unusual and sent this information in a file to the DPP only for the latter to miraculously conclude there is no basis for any charge in this regard. That is nonsense.

Instead of making allegations against me in my time as Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be better served by answering questions about the purpose of the aeroplanes landing at Shannon Airport and why flights from Rabat, Cairo and Amman are landing there. It has been proved that these were routes used for the transportation of people for torture. Instead of making allegations against me, the Minister should set down rules in this area. Civilian aircraft must be included in new inspection procedures. This means we will be in perfect harmony with the Chicago Convention and it will allow the public, EU and others to know we are a country that values UN protections and that we wish to establish a distance between ourselves and those countries, including our neighbour Britain, which — although signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights — offered up their citizens to the indeterminate process that ends up in Guantanamo.

It is time for us clearly to say that the definition of Irish foreign policy is based robustly on the defence of human rights. It is important for us, for example, to be able to take a principled position in coming weeks in regard to the non-proliferation treaty, when we will be asked, as members of the nuclear suppliers group, to vote on the MBUs agreement. Is Irish foreign policy based on expediency, is it something to be trimmed and adjusted, something about which we can be clever? This is not a time for quibbling about whether we are compliant but rather a time for showing we are genuinely compliant, that we know what we mean about positive obligations. We must prove we are willing to say to friendly countries that they must operate within the framework of international law and that we will speak unequivocally against the idea of bringing into existence a parallel, extra-legal and inhumane system called rendition. No more than Guantanamo is a great blotch on the face of humanity, its appalling dark presence a reflection on the international community, so also is extraordinary rendition.

I have made no false accusation against the Government, I have simply said it has been appallingly negligent in not allowing us to say we have had no part in this process because we have chosen to know and we can prove that we were not part of it. That is not the position now.

I ask the House to support the motion.

See this speech in context