John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the House. I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak again on this important topic. It is less than four months since this issue was the subject of a Private Member's motion in this House and the reality is that not much has changed in that time. What is new is the publication of the Council of Europe Report on CIA Rendition Flights, referred to in the Independents group's motion. That report and the motion's reference to the establishment of a special committee are the two elements on which I will focus.

Before doing so, I wish to mention the incident at Shannon last Sunday, when a serving marine and US citizen, subject to military law, tried and convicted of an offence, was being transported back to the US to serve his sentence. Although it has no connection with allegations of extraordinary rendition and, thus, this motion, it is right the Government treated even an inadvertent administrative error as unacceptable and with the gravest concern. The Minister correctly summoned the US ambassador and left him in no doubt as to Ireland's position on the failure to inform and secure consent.

Importantly, in the context of this evening's debate, the Government did two things. First, to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent any recurrence of the incident, the Government is to engage with the US authorities on arrangements for notification and information sharing, and the strengthening of verification procedures, as necessary. Second, the Minister took the opportunity to reiterate the consistent position of the Government that no aircraft can use Shannon for extraordinary rendition and that Ireland will not facilitate and has not facilitated extraordinary renditions. That is, and remains, the Government's policy.

The Minister made it crystal clear that if the Government at any stage receives hard evidence of extraordinary rendition it would act upon it and expect the Garda Síochána to act upon it also.

Returning to my two points on this motion, I said in the House on 8 March last that DickMarty's report for the Council of Europe was very careful and precise in its use of language. It is fair to say that Dick Marty's decision to adopt the metaphor of a global "spider's web" for his report represents a regrettable move away from careful and precise use of language. Speaking as he does of "a web that has been spun out incrementally over several years, using tactics and techniques that have had to be developed in response to new theatres of war" in my view does little to help any argument he wishes to make.

In any event, my first point is that Dick Marty found no evidence of terrorism suspects being "rendered" through Shannon. I am not surprised. I do not believe that the US would use Shannon for such activity. Senator Norris may have strong views on the US military but I do not think he would think it stupid in this regard. I draw attention to the sensible questions posed by the media in this regard and questions that I posed here previously. Would the United States be so stupid as to use a civilian facility in a neutral, albeit friendly country when across the Irish Sea, it has access to secure military airbases used by the US Air Force? Would it be so stupid as to use a civilian facility when its air force has no shortage of long-range aircraft with mid-air refuelling capabilities that can travel around the globe or stay in the air for extended periods without landing for refuelling at Shannon or anywhere else?

I have often wondered, as a former officer, what military principles would be going through the mind of a commanding officer who would risk such activity at Shannon, when there is the possibility of a technical fault, bad weather or numerous other reasons which would ground the aeroplane and risk uncovering activity he or she needs to keep covered, when there are NATO bases a mere skip away in the United Kingdom or Germany.

The Independent Senators' motion mentions the establishment by this House of a select committee to investigate the use of Shannon by American military authorities, especially the CIA. May I remind them of the words of Dick Marty, to whom they refer to with great admiration. He stated, "It is paradoxical to expect bodies without any real investigatory powers to adduce evidence in the legal sense". This House could fit into that category. He goes on to state, "a lack of willingness and commitment on the part of national institutions that could, and should, have completely clarified these allegations which from the outset did not appear to be totally unfounded".

The Government co-operated fully with the Council of Europe investigation, and its explanation of its law and practice to the Council of Europe was one of only nine, out of 45 received, that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe judged to be sufficiently comprehensive not to require further clarification. This exemplifies the "willingness and commitment" of our Government.

As for the "willingness and commitment" of this House, I was delighted to work on drafting the terms of reference for a proposed select committee. I made this point in March but obviously must make it again: the reason for not convening the select committee was that a majority in this House did not support it, not that a majority thought there was nothing to examine, or any other surreptitious reason. It was not my wish that the issue end in that manner. Pursuing so far and so publicly a process towards establishing such a committee did this House no service.

I am not inclined to undermine this House by proposing defiance of its determination, the will of the majority. One should be careful about where one's logic leads. I refer to the claim that Ireland colludes in rendition, that aircraft landed at Shannon after rendition operations, and that Ireland colludes by allowing an aeroplane to land at Shannon, that has transported a person illegally, or may do so. Our logic may be applied only to the use of the aeroplane while it is in the country. Were Ireland to cease engagement with entities or operations that in any way facilitate the running of a military operation, that could have serious and unforeseen consequences. Do we ask Intel, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft to cease operations here because armies employ their technology, microchips, computers and operating systems? Should we ask Pfizer, Abbott and Wyeth, all the pharmaceutical companies, to pack up because soldiers in combat situations might use their medicines?

I welcome the raising of this issue by the Independent Senators, notwithstanding my two main reservations. Everyone must be concerned about military action, capture, transportation, torture, the abuse of human rights, or any dilution of what every right-thinking person considers to be torture or inhumane treatment. We cannot suspend our reason or logic. That would serve neither this House nor any belief, no matter how passionately held.