Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

It has been the Government's consistent position that we will consider carefully with partners any specific and workable recommendations that may be made by either the Council of Europe or the European Parliament in this area. We have made this quite clear on every occasion. I anticipate that much of what both bodies will have to say will require coordinated action at a European level, if it is to be effective. The Government will, of course, maintain its position at the forefront of efforts to ensure that international law is adhered to in all aspects on this matter, and that any gaps identified in the existing regulatory regimes are filled with utmost urgency.

Some commentators, including some in this House, have claimed that every type of diplomatic assurance is now suspect or insufficient. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs explained yesterday, such a development would represent a revolution in international relations. In the Government's view, it is wholly unwarranted.

In its response to the questionnaire circulated by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr. Terry Davis, the Government outlined in very considerable detail its view of our international law obligations relating to our positive obligation to prevent torture. In his preliminary analysis of the responses received, the Secretary General made no indication that he had any objection to our Government's position on this matter, though it was clear from his analysis that he had read our response fully.

In essence, as Deputy Dermot Ahern made clear in a letter earlier this year to the Irish Human Rights Commission, it is the Government's view that there is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the relevant international case law. This does not in fact deal with assurances generally but rather, and explicitly, with assurances given about the treatment of particular individuals, extradited or expelled from one state to another.

Contrary to what has been asserted by some, the European Court of Human Rights has never held that a factual assertion by a state on a matter directly within its full control cannot be relied upon. It is highly relevant in this context to note that the court has stated its respect for the comity of nations, and has also held that the convention must be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part.

Suggestions of collusion and failure to fulfil positive obligations may have some basis when applied to states which wilfully ignore potential illegality on their territory, but that is clearly not the case with Ireland. We were the first Government, when rumours of extraordinary rendition emerged, to raise concerns about the matter with US authorities. We were the first Government to demand assurances that our territory would not be used for such purposes. To speak of a failure to act, which is the essence of the charge on positive obligations, against such a background of pro-active intervention, is simply unreasonable.

The Government cannot agree with the suggestion that our positive obligations under international law may require that searches of aircraft be carried out. It has repeatedly been made clear that the Garda Síochána has the powers it needs to investigate all reasonable allegations of illegal activity. There is no legal bar to searching civilian aircraft of the type allegedly involved where there is a basis for doing so.

Regarding suggestions of deliberate ignorance and wilful blindness the issue of rights of search provides a useful example. Those who oppose the Government's position on this matter have suggested that no right of search exists, and that the Garda authorities have been instructed not to search aircraft. They suggest this despite having been provided with long and detailed documents outlining the relevant powers of search and in the face of Garda and DPP investigations into complaints that have revealed nothing. Their issue is not, if the truth be told, with the procedures used to investigate, but with the results.

Regarding the practicalities of search, identification by NGOs and the media of aircraft that are alleged to have been involved in extraordinary rendition 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 in achieving the desired goal. Moreover, given that at worst 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. It is far more effective, and in the Government's view better fulfils our positive obligations, to have sought and received specific factual and unqualified assurances in the manner that we have done.

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 early, both bilaterally and in an EU framework, to receive considered responses, and ultimately the Government believes, to fulfil our obligations under both international and domestic law in the most comprehensive manner possible.

I would like to brief Senators on a recent, quite separate, incident at Shannon and on how the Government has reacted to it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs informed Dail Éireann yesterday evening that the Department of Foreign Affairs was contacted by the US Embassy and informed that last Sunday, 11 June, a civilian aircraft landed at Shannon for a technical refuelling stop en route from Kuwait to the United States. Among other unarmed military personnel, the aeroplane 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 have been lawful under both international and domestic laws, it requires the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The US authorities did not seek such consent and this failure, though inadvertent, is unacceptable.

The US ambassador was summoned to Iveagh House, where the Minister outlined our very 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 to urgently advise his authorities in the US of the Government's views. He also confirmed his willingness to review the situation immediately, with a view to ensuring that there is no recurrence.

The Cabinet discussed the matter yesterday, and it was 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 discussions with the US authorities on this matter.

While I would 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 take appropriate steps in response to such a breach. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, already announced measures in this regard yesterday.

I have listened with interest to the debate and Senator Norris has already quoted from the Marty report. His quotes from that report regarding the inhumane treatment of prisoners are not connected with any incidents in this country. I share all Senators' views on reports of inhumane treatment and torture of prisoners. This Government abhors such practices and has made that clear regarding the use of extraordinary rendition. This point has been made in this country, in the US, in Europe and at the UN and other international fora. We are proud to do so and we are consistent on this situation.

The Government's consistent and long-standing position on the issue of extraordinary rendition is quite clear. We utterly condemn it, in no way do we facilitate it, and looking to the future we are willing, with our partners, to consider 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.

We utterly reject any allegation of collusion in this practice. Indeed we reject any suggestion, which I have shown by the facts, to be groundless, that we have failed to meet our obligations. Ireland's efforts in this area have been prompt, timely and effective. I urge the Senators to reject the motion.