Seanad debates

Wednesday, 8 March 2006

Use of Irish Airports: Motion.

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)

I move:

"(1)(a) That, having regard to:

(i) recent reports that US aircraft landing at Irish airports may have been used to transport persons to locations where they may be at risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; and

(ii) Ireland's obligations inter alia under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003;

a Select Committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Use of Irish Airports, consisting of seven Senators, shall be appointed to consider:

—the above-mentioned reports and any others of a similar nature which may come into the public domain;

—the mechanisms whereby the State or its agencies can ascertain the purposes for which aircraft landing at Irish airports are being used and the overall extent to which such mechanisms have been invoked since 1 January 2002;

—the mechanisms whereby the State or its agencies can investigate, whether on foot of allegations or otherwise, whether persons are being transported, via aircraft landing at Irish airports, to locations where they risk torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the overall extent to which such mechanisms have been invoked since 1 January 2002;

—whether Irish laws and practices ensure adequate safeguards to prevent a breach, by the State and/or by any foreign official in the jurisdiction, the above-mentioned international human rights instruments and any other relevant laws;

and shall report thereon to Seanad Éireann by 1 June 2006.

(b) The quorum of the Select Committee shall be four.

(c) The Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 65(1) to (9) inclusive."

Tá fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Ó Treasaigh, mar a bhíonn i gconaí. This is one of the more extraordinary debates in which I have been involved. Like other Members on both sides of the House, I participated with considerable goodwill and flexibility in an effort, proposed by Senator Norris but essentially initiated and driven by the Leader of the House, to establish a select committee to examine the reports which were gradually emerging in the media of extraordinary happenings. The group that tried to establish the committee worked thoroughly to that end.

As I have said a few times without betraying any confidences, I suggested at the group's meetings that if the select committee was to have any weight and standing, it was appropriate and right that it should be composed as all committees of this House are composed, meaning that it should have a built-in Government majority. Like all other Opposition Senators, I did not want the select committee to be able to bushwhack the Government. I like bushwhacking the Government, but I regarded this issue as being of such seriousness that I was willing to forego that possibility. I thought everyone else was just as keen for it to be taken seriously. I was under the impression that there was consensus across all parties that this issue was deserving of the fullest support.

The group in question carefully assembled terms of reference for the select committee. It is worth saying that the terms of reference are not about condemnation or prejudging. They relate to the fact that reports had emerged that aircraft used in what we call "extraordinary rendition"— it is unfortunate that the phrase is now part of normal parlance — had used Irish airports before, during or after such activities. Although I may hear to the contrary, I do not believe anyone disputes that it is definite that such aircraft used our airports. One could argue about whether one accepts the word of the United States that no such prisoners were on board the aircraft when they landed in Ireland. That the aircraft landed here and that the aircraft were used in the practice of extraordinary rendition is a view that I take to be shared virtually universally. The issue of whether the individuals in question were tortured is a matter for further investigation, although I believe the case is pretty overwhelming.

As I have said, the first task of the select committee will be to examine the reports of such activities. In light of those reports, the second task of the select committee will be to ascertain whether this country can enforce what it accepts as its international obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, for example. Ireland has further obligations in line with its status as a founding member of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ireland was one of the first countries to accept courageously extra-territorial jurisdiction from the European Court of Human Rights. Like other countries, Ireland has suffered as a result of the ups and downs of that relationship. It has never flinched from its belief that it is right to accept such jurisdiction.

Having looked at the reports, the select committee will make an assessment of their validity and consider whether Ireland is willing and able to meet its obligations under various international agreements. That is all the committee will be charged with doing. Much of the motion before the House relates to the structure of the committee. It does not set out in advance what the members of the select committee believe to be the case. It has been proposed on foot of the considerable disquiet and evidence in this regard, which is found in other countries as well as in Ireland. Similar bodies have been established in other parliaments, for example, by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and by the European Parliament.

While the group I have mentioned was attempting to draw up terms of reference, and in the immediate period afterwards, the Government was responding to queries from the Council of Europe, in particular. I was glad to hear the Government telling the Council of Europe it was in complete opposition to the practice of so-called "extraordinary rendition", although it was nothing less than I would have hoped for from an Irish Government.

The Government also told the Council of Europe that "a thorough examination of practice throughout the State ... revealed no indication of the occurrence" of any such practices, which would be "plainly in breach of international law, Irish law, and of the principles upon which the Council of Europe is founded". That is the Government's stated position, as outlined to the Council of Europe. I want the committee to investigate what the Government says it has already investigated. It is clear that the information is already in the Government's hands, assuming the Government is telling the truth, as I always do until it is proven otherwise.

I would like to know who carried out the "thorough examination" to which the Government referred in the document it submitted to the Council of Europe. Was it carried out by an individual, by an agency or by the Department of Foreign Affairs? What form did the "thorough examination" take? Were aircraft inspected as part of the examination? I do not refer to binoculars being trained on aircraft from 150 m away at Shannon or Baldonnel. Were the aircraft actually inspected? Did those who carried out the examination ascertain who owned the aircraft which are the subject of so many reports? Did they bother to do so?

The Council of Europe has been told that our Government carried out a "thorough examination". I seek the establishment of a select committee that would ask such questions, not of the US Administration or any other foreign administration but of this country's Government. Although the Government has claimed that the select committee's work has already been done, the public does not know how it was done.

Does the Government acknowledge, as the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, has done, that the practice of rendition exists? There may be a dispute about the definition of "torture". Dr. Rice has said that extraordinary rendition is used in defence of "our freedom", although she denies that the United States uses, facilitates or approves of torture, or allows it to happen. I am sure the Minister of State is aware that there was a serious dispute between members of the US Congress and the current Administration in Washington about the prohibition of the use of inhuman and cruel practices in interrogation. It was a debate that was about the different forms of torture. There is a no doubt — there is widespread literature available on this — that some people in the current US administration favour practices that would be regarded as torture in other countries, especially in western Europe. The US Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, acknowledged that such practices are carried out. The administration acknowledges that it believes that in certain circumstances, certain practices that could be cruel or inhuman might be justified.

Our Government has stated that such practices are in breach of Irish law, international law and of the principles upon which the European Convention on Human Rights was set up. What did the Government do to vindicate those rights? What did it do to vindicate Ireland's position as a country which believes that one of the fundamentals of its foreign policy is the vindication of human rights? Were any of the aircraft examined? If there is a reasonable suspicion that an aircraft that lands at Shannon was used in the process of depriving another human being of his or her most basic rights, does the State have any willingness or ability to investigate that aircraft? Does it have the willingness to search it, to carry out forensic tests on it for evidence, or to question the crew?

These are the issues that this committee was supposed to investigate. These issues were to be investigated by a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas dealing with Irish people. We were not attempting to be the Skibereen Eagle keeping an eye on the Czar of Russia. We were attempting to ensure that human rights best practice was being practised in Ireland. We were not asserting that anybody was on board any of these aircraft.

There is a prima facie case that aircraft which landed in this country were used in rendition. The US authorities deny that anyone was on board and our Government has assured me that it accepts the word of those authorities, which was given on the most categorical terms. That was said by senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I am not in a position to question it. However, that is not to say that the issue is not of fundamental importance.

I have outlined what we were going to do, but somewhere along the line, the Government took fright. We had got to the stage where we had agreed reasonable terms of reference on a cross-party basis.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.