JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 2007

Extraordinary Rendition: Discussion with the Irish Human Rights Commission and Departments.

Chairman

Before we start, I advise witnesses that whereas Members of the Houses enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made in committee, witnesses do not enjoy absolute privilege. Accordingly, caution should be exercised, particularly with regard to references of a personal nature.

I welcome the delegation from the Irish Human Rights Commission, which includes Dr. Maurice Manning, president, Ms Suzanne Egan, commissioner, and Mr. Des Hogan, director of inquiry and legal services. I also welcome Mr. Rory Montgomery and his colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ken O'Leary from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Mr. John Murphy and Mr. Dick Davis from the Department of Transport.

The subject of today's discussion is extraordinary rendition, a practice whereby terrorist suspects are allegedly abducted abroad and brought to other countries for interrogation at secret locations.

Senator David Norris

The Chairman used the word "allegedly". This practice has been proven in a number of international courts.

Chairman

I am about to say that.

Senator David Norris

The word "allegedly" should be deleted from the Chairman's script.

Chairman

Both situations exist in terms of allegations and proofs.

Senator David Norris

The Chairman described it in general form as "a practice whereby terrorist suspects are allegedly abducted". It is not alleged; it is a proven fact. Rendition takes place.

Chairman

We shall note the Senator's comments. Following the terrorist attacks on New York on 11 September 2001, this practice, although shrouded in secrecy, appears to have increased. Reports of the practice became public in 2005 following newspaper coverage in the United States and reports from human rights agencies. Deep concerns about this illegal practice and the torture and other forms of ill-treatment associated with it created an international outcry, particularly from human rights organisations. The issue became a matter of controversy in a number of European countries in which allegations and reports were made that extraordinary rendition had taken place. It also became a matter of public concern in Ireland when reports emerged claiming that aircraft used by the Central Intelligence Agency for extraordinary rendition had landed and refuelled at Shannon Airport.

The Irish Government has made it perfectly clear that it is completely opposed to the practice of extraordinary rendition and outlined explicit measures in the programme for Government to ensure the practice does not take place in Ireland. Last week, the Irish Human Rights Commission published a report which reviewed Ireland's human rights obligations on extraordinary rendition. The report makes a number of specific recommendations in this regard.

I ask Dr. Manning to make some introductory remarks following which Ms Egan will make a presentation to the joint committee on the commission's report. I will then ask Mr. Montgomery to outline the position taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his response to the commission's report. Following both of these presentations, I will open the floor to questions from members.

Dr. Maurice Manning

It is a great honour to appear before the committee. On behalf of the Irish Human Rights Commission, I thank the Chairman for the invitation. The substantive issues will be addressed by my colleagues, Ms Suzanne Egan and Mr. Des Hogan, and I will make some brief preliminary observations.

The question arises of why the Irish Human Rights Commission is involved in this issue given that it is but one of the many human rights issues with which we deal. However, a core function of the commission is ensuring the State fully complies with all of the human rights obligations enshrined in domestic law and the Constitution or our international agreements. We became concerned early in the rendition controversy that Ireland was in breach of some of its obligations. Once we became concerned and after several inquiries were made of us, we willingly decided these issues should be examined against the backdrop of our obligations. Over the past two years, we have made our concerns known to the Government through dialogue and publicly to Members of these Houses and to the media. The controversy has, therefore, been ongoing for some time. We commissioned a full report into all aspects of the issue and published it last week.

It is important that the controversy be put in context. The commission has never claimed other than that the Government is fully opposed to the practice of rendition. Our concerns arise in respect of aspects of the controversy but we have no doubt about the Government's opposition. We have genuine respect for the human rights record and performance of the Department of Foreign Affairs and appreciate the openness and professionalism of the dialogue it has conducted with us on these issues. We are pleased to see officials from other Departments here today because they indicate this is a cross-Government issue rather than only concerning the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Ms Suzanne Egan

I thank the committee for providing us the opportunity of presenting our report. Dr. Manning has outlined the remit of the commission and I will explain the reasons we have been concerned and the nature of the legal advice we have given to the Government on this most important of human rights issues.

Before doing so, however, it is important that we put this issue in context by stating plainly what the term "extraordinary rendition" actually means. It is an American term used to describe what is essentially the forcible kidnapping of an individual by the agents of a state and the transfer of that person to a secret prison in another state where he or she can be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment without recourse to the courts, lawyers or any of the mechanisms set up to protect the human rights of an individual. It is a practice designed to circumvent and set at naught the human rights principles and practices that have developed over decades to protect the rights of those under investigation or in detention. Detainees subjected to extraordinary rendition have described having their clothes cut off, being subjected to an extensive and invasive body search, being forced to wear a nappy, being hooded, shackled, drugged and strapped to a mattress or floor in an uncomfortable position, with no knowledge of their fate or destination. This treatment alone, which continues throughout the transit, clearly falls within the definition of inhuman and degrading treatment. It does not include the torture or ill-treatment which inevitably faces the detainee in the third country. The prohibition on torture and ill-treatment generally is, of course, an absolute obligation on states and does not permit of any derogation.

The commission's advice to Government on this issue dates back to 21 December 2005 when we sent our initial letter to Government outlining our legal concerns that the State may be in breach of its human rights obligations by failing to investigate claims that Shannon Airport might be used by CIA aeroplanes involved in the practice of extraordinary rendition. As the Chairman indicated earlier, such claims had been raised in the Irish media and in other quarters for some time. Amnesty International had reported on the 5 December 2005 that six aeroplanes used by the CIA for extraordinary renditions had made 800 flights in and out of European airspace, which included 50 landings at Shannon. The issue had at that stage also been raised in the Oireachtas, where parliamentary questions had been put to then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, about the matter. The commission was also aware of international investigations taking place at a broader level regarding extraordinary rendition by the CIA of detainees to secret detention facilities in Europe and beyond. This included in particular the investigations being conducted at that time by a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe led by Senator Dick Marty and the inquiry being conducted by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr. Terry Davis, pursuant to Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR.

The primary focus of the commission at that stage was on the preventive aspect of the guarantee against torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and also implicit in Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The State is party to all of these conventions. Based in particular on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the commission took the view that the State should conduct an official investigation where an arguable claim is raised that a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR is being committed by third parties, which includes agents of a foreign state, within the jurisdiction of the State. The principle of non- refoulement embedded in Article 3 of the ECHR inevitably requires that such an investigation also take place where the State’s territory is being used to facilitate the transportation of any person to a place where there is a risk of ill-treatment in violation of Article 3.

In that December 2005 resolution we indicated our view that diplomatic assurances were not sufficient to fulfil a state's obligations to guard against torture or ill-treatment. This view was based, in particular, on the decision of the UN Committee Against Torture in the case of Agiza v. Sweden, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Chahal v. United Kingdom and the views of the UN special rapporteur on torture in his August 2005 report to the UN Commission on Human Rights. We were aware at that stage that the Irish authorities had the legal right to search all civil aircraft which were the subject of these allegations. However, we believed that our proposal to seek permission constituted a non-confrontational method of resolving the matter.

As documented in the appendices of our recent report, and mentioned by Dr. Manning, the Government disagreed with the commission's advice and there followed a number of written exchanges between us, culminating in an oral dialogue in July 2007. One positive outcome of these constructive engagements was that the Department provided the commission with a copy of the diplomatic assurances which it had sought and received from the US Government on the transportation of prisoners through the territory. Diametrically opposed views on the legal issues emerged in the course of our dialogue with Government, as a result of which the commission decided to conduct a thorough review of the matter. It conducted this review having regard to the further evidence which had emerged by mid-2007 on the nature and extent of the extraordinary rendition programme, the possible use of Shannon Airport, the case law of various human rights bodies, as well as the views of various organisations and commentators on the matter. The results of that review are contained in the detailed report before the committee.

In the result, the review demonstrates that in December 2007, the commission is fortified in the view which we first expressed two years ago that the reliance being placed by the Government on the diplomatic assurances it sought and obtained from the US Government is not sufficient to comply with the State's obligation to prevent torture. More must be done by the State to fulfil its positive obligation to prevent torture or ill-treatment taking place in its territory or airspace and to ensure that its territory is not being used in any way to facilitate extraordinary rendition to another State where a person may be tortured or subjected to ill-treatment.

The second main conclusion reached in the review, which may be characterised as a recommendation, is that in order to ensure full compliance with its human rights obligations, the State should put in place a reliable and independently verifiable system of inspection, so that no prisoner could ever be transported through this country except in accordance with proper legal formalities and the highest observance of human rights standards. It is not sufficient that the State relies on private individuals to bring forward evidence to the Garda of suspicious activities of aircraft. In the absence of a proper system of inspection, it is impossible for any ordinary citizen to gain evidence regarding such activity or to ascertain with any level of confidence whether such illegal activity is taking place in the State. As was pointed out by the Department, the ordinary citizen has no authority to access the relevant parts of Shannon Airport to gain evidence.

Other specific recommendations of the commission are detailed in the final pages of the report and in the executive summary. The views of the commission are based on our firm belief that there is credible evidence already in the public domain that Shannon Airport has been used by specific aeroplanes used in extraordinary rendition circuits. This evidence is sufficient to trigger our human rights obligations to prevent torture and ill-treatment and to investigate the matter.

The additional information now to hand which was not available in 2005 is as follows. The investigation commissioned by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly concluded that a number of countries, including Ireland, could be held responsible for collusion in the process of extraordinary rendition by virtue of being stopovers for flights involving the unlawful transfer of detainees. In a resolution in June 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly called on member states to "take effective measures to prevent renditions and rendition flights through the member state's territory and airspace".

An investigation was conducted by the European Parliament's temporary committee on rendition and the parliament passed a resolution in February 2007 in which it specifically deplored the stopovers in Ireland made by aircraft that are known to have been used by the CIA in extraordinary rendition activities. The Parliament also recommended a ban on CIA aircraft landing in Ireland unless a regime of inspection was in place.

As I mentioned, in November 2005 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe invoked a seldom-used procedure under Article 52 of the ECHR. His investigation concluded that while stronger international controls were required to check whether transiting aircraft are being used for illegal purposes, even within the current legal framework, states should equip themselves with stronger control tools. He also concluded that mere assurances by foreign states that their agents abroad comply with international and national law are not enough, but that formal guarantees and enforcement mechanisms need to be set out in agreements and national law in order to protect ECHR rights.

A legal opinion commissioned by the Council of Europe, known as the Venice commission opinion, concluded in March 2006 that member states should refuse to allow transit of certain prisoners in circumstances where there is a risk that they will be exposed to torture or ill treatment. It states that where a state has serious reasons to believe that the mission of an aircraft crossing its airspace is to carry prisoners with the intention of transferring them to countries where they would face ill-treatment, that state must take all possible measures to prevent the commission of human rights violations in its territory, including its airspace. This opinion was compiled with the assistance of a number of human rights experts throughout Europe.

Jurisprudence on cases concerning extraordinary rendition by both the UN committee against torture and the UN human rights committee, to which I earlier referred, have made clear that a state cannot shelter behind assurances it has received from another state in order to fulfil its obligation to prevent torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. States are required to take "steps of due diligence" to avoid a threat to an individual.

These statements of principle can and do apply to the predicament faced by this State. It is not sufficient that the Government should rely on a very narrow view of the case law that has emerged to date on the question of diplomatic assurances. Given the entirely secretive nature of the process and the inability of victims to access any legal system, the likelihood of a victim of extraordinary rendition, who had been transited through a state like Ireland in the course of a rendition operation, ever being able to prove such facts in a court of law is very remote. Therefore we must rely on the spirit of the case law expressed to date, which in our view and that of many other eminent experts in this area leads to the inexorable conclusions reached in our report. These conclusions have been substantially endorsed very recently by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, Mr. Thomas Hammarberg, in visits to Ireland.

The commission is sincerely of the view that the recommendations contained in our report should be implemented urgently in order to ensure the State is not in violation of its international human rights obligations. The inspection regime, which we have recommended, would show this State's willingness to comply with the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament on the practice of extraordinary rendition.

Given that the programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats contains a commitment that Ireland will be a model UN state, this system of inspection would send a clear signal to the international community that Ireland is taking effective steps to ensure human rights are being observed. It would also demonstrate the Government's willingness to fulfil its commitment in the programme to ensure all relevant legal instruments are used so the practice of extraordinary rendition does not occur in any form in this State.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has taken the lead on this issue for Government to date but in our view it is necessary for the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Transport, and indeed An Garda Síochána, to work together if the State's international obligations are to be met in putting in place an effective inspection regime.

Chairman

I thank the commissioner.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

On my own behalf and that of my colleagues from the Department of Transport and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. John Murphy and Mr. Ken O'Leary, I am grateful for the opportunity to outline the position of the Government on issues raised by the review and very well summarised by Commissioner Egan.

I acknowledge the commitment of the president of the commission, Dr. Maurice Manning; Commissioner Egan; and their colleagues, including Des Hogan, to engagement with the Government and in particular with the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Department of Foreign Affairs over the past two years. I stress that the Department, and indeed the Government as a whole, attaches great importance to our ongoing interaction with the human rights community both in Ireland and internationally. I heard Dr. Manning's kind words on that. We fully respect and value the statutory functions of the commission in protecting and upholding human rights in Ireland.

As the Chairman indicated and the commission president confirmed, the dialogue between us over the past two years has allowed the Government to confirm absolutely its total opposition to the practice of extraordinary rendition, which is illegal and contrary to the constitutional provisions on personal freedoms and to our international human rights commitments. The nature of what is involved was spelled out by Commissioner Egan.

As members of the committee will be aware, the Government's position on this matter has been set out on many occasions in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Foreign Affairs issued a full statement last week on the commission's review and I understand a copy has been provided to the committee in preparation for today's meeting. The review itself includes, in Appendix IV, the lengthy correspondence the Minister and the Department have had with the commission.

There are important differences between the Government's position and that of the commission and I will address these in a few moments. It is crucial to reiterate at the outset that none of the various investigations into allegations of extraordinary rendition, whether by the European Parliament or the Council of Europe, has revealed any evidence, or even a specific allegation, that any person has on any occasion been subject to extraordinary rendition through Ireland.

Senator David Norris

This is very disingenuous. Will the witness tell me if this allegation has ever been made to his knowledge?

Chairman

Mr. Montgomery should be allowed to speak without interruption at this stage.

Senator David Norris

This is very disingenuous. We have got this from the Minister for Foreign Affairs all the time.

Chairman

The Senator will have an opportunity to ask any question he likes afterwards.

Senator David Norris

It is morally offensive to have this kind of stuff put out. Nobody has ever made these allegations that I know of.

Chairman

It is also offensive to interrupt somebody when they are trying to make a speech.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

I would be happy to respond to the Senator's points.

Dr. Manning very fairly acknowledged this point in his evidence to the European Parliament's temporary committee on extraordinary rendition.

I will briefly recall the Government's activity on extraordinary rendition in recent years. Last July, the commission was provided with a summary note illustrating the Government's active engagement with the United States authorities as far back as late 2003, some two years before this issue hit the headlines. This note, which has also been circulated for today's committee meeting, makes clear that the Taoiseach has raised the issue with President Bush and the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has raised it with Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

On the Minister's instructions, it has also been consistently pursued with the US authorities at senior official and ambassadorial level. In response, the Government has received in a European context uniquely clear and categoric assurances from the US that no extraordinary rendition has taken place through Ireland. These assurances have been repeatedly confirmed by the US side.

The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was also the first EU Minister to have raised extraordinary rendition in the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels and one of only two EU Foreign Ministers to agree to meet with the European Parliament's temporary committee on extraordinary rendition at the end of last year.

In the Council of Europe context, Ireland's comprehensive report to the secretary general on our approach to extraordinary rendition was one of only nine member state reports out of 46 submitted judged not to require any follow-up inquiry. Subsequently, Ireland has been one of a number of delegations to the Council of Europe which has made clear its readiness to advance work on the Secretary General's recommendations.

The programme for Government contains a number of commitments on which action is already being taken by the responsible Departments. On the instructions of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Garda Síochána has been formally requested to ensure all members are appropriately trained and familiar with the relevant legislation in this field. The Department of Transport intends to host a meeting early next year of a regional subgroup of member states of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, at which the question of a review of the Chicago Convention will be raised, as was proposed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he met the European Parliament committee.

I will now turn to the main areas of difference between the commission and the Government. We agree with the commission generally on what are the areas of difference. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between us on the significance to be attached to the assurances the Government has received from the US Government. The assurances we have received from the US are unqualified and they clearly set out a factual position on which the US has full knowledge and control. The assurances are that no detainee or prisoner has been or would be transferred through Ireland as part of the extraordinary rendition programme. There is no ambiguity about them and, as the Minister has made clear, if any evidence were to emerge that they were not being complied with, immediate action would be taken by the Government.

In questioning these assurances, the commission has sought to rely on international jurisprudence relating to a very different type of diplomatic assurance against torture, where one state proposes to extradite or otherwise transfer an individual to another state. The Government's view, spelled out in more detail in some of the correspondence of Appendix IV, is that by seeking to extract from this jurisprudence general principles that are not established in law, the commission is putting forward an overly broad interpretation of the law relating to diplomatic assurances which are a fundamental element in the conduct of relations between states.

I note that the commission acknowledges there is no case law dealing specifically with the issue of extraordinary rendition in the circumstances that, in its words, are most likely to arise in the Irish context. It also acknowledges that the opinion of the Venice commission does not specifically address the question of diplomatic assurances in the context of extraordinary rendition. However, the commission seeks to rely heavily on the substance of this opinion to delineate the scope of the State's positive obligation to prevent torture and other ill-treatment.

Again, as we have made clear to the commission, there are some important qualifications on this positive obligation. The Venice commission states, and commissioner Egan underscores this, that a State's obligations are engaged if it has serious reasons, and I emphasise serious reasons, to believe that an aircraft crossing its airspace carries prisoners with the intention of transferring them to countries where they would face ill-treatment. Although, at our request, the review mentions this qualification of "serious reasons", it does not, in our view, give it due prominence. Nor does it recognise adequately that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights accepts that positive obligations on a State are not unlimited and that not every risk can entail a requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising.

In short, while respecting the commission's analysis, the Government is fully satisfied that it is entitled to rely on the categoric assurances received from the United States and that it is fully in compliance with our international legal and human rights obligations.

The commission has recommended that the State should introduce an inspection and monitoring regime as a matter of urgency for certain aircraft alleged to have been involved at some point in extraordinary rendition and for aircraft from any suspect country in this context. It is also proposed that any complaint to the Garda about an aircraft, whatever the evidence provided, should result in a search of the aircraft in question.

As was made clear once again on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, during an Adjournment debate in the Dáil on 12 December, the Garda Síochána already has full authority to search civil aircraft in any circumstances where it has reasonable grounds for suspecting illegal activity, such as extraordinary rendition, and to carry out any necessary investigations. It is worth noting that in none of the seven cases actually investigated by the Garda since October 2004 has evidence emerged justifying any subsequent legal action. The Government is strongly of the view that this existing power of the Garda Síochána is fully adequate.

Beyond this, there are also very serious questions, again spelled out in detail in the correspondence with the commission and based on what has been alleged about the types of aircraft that may have been involved in rendition activity, over the effectiveness, practicality, proportionality and reasonableness of any inspection regime, whether as proposed by the commission or on a random basis. Even on the basis of the Council of Europe and European Parliament inquiries, there is no evidence, nor even any concrete assertion, that there has been any rendition through Ireland. Of the thousands of private civilian aircraft movements though Irish airports, the European Parliament report identified just four occasions, the most recent in early 2004, when aeroplanes that may have been involved in extraordinary rendition operations elsewhere passed empty through Ireland a number of days before or after the alleged operation.

A further important point for the Government is that, to our knowledge, no EU member state has introduced an inspection regime such as that proposed by the Irish Human Rights Commission.

To conclude, there is no disagreement between the Government and the commission on the fundamental point, our complete opposition to extraordinary rendition, which we have made clear to the US and others. We do differ on our assessment of the international law, the question of diplomatic assurances, and the necessity for, or value of, a specific regime for the inspection of private civil aircraft. I emphasise once again the extent and vigour of the Government's past and continuing activity with regard to extraordinary rendition.

My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I thank the Chairman for inviting the representatives of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs to come before the committee and am particularly glad to see Dr. Manning here as we have not seen him for some time.

It is important to state that extraordinary rendition is terribly wrong and that it is being carried out by the United States; it is an American term. It would be naive to think that extraordinary rendition is a product of the 21st century as it has existed in different forms for a long time. One can understand, to a degree, why states feel under threat but it is inexcusable that any society should involve itself in extraordinary rendition.

It is also important to point out, based on what I have read and heard today, that there is no evidence of extraordinary rendition taking place through our ports and airports. I have listened to Mr. Montgomery and read the relevant documentation and the Government is of the opinion that it is complying with its human rights obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture, UNCAT, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Article 43 of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

I went through this report in detail and listened to the presentation today and this strikes me as a biscuit or bar type argument; one thinks one has reached the crunch and then the argument is refuted. Mr. Montgomery made reference to case law cited in two cases, one of which referred to a Mr. Agiza being taken from Sweden to Egypt. He went on to say the Government would claim that this case law is not applicable to it.

Ms Egan's submission referred to the Venice commission's assertion that when the state has serious reason to believe extraordinary rendition may occur it is its responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, to engage in preventative measures. The Venice commission's report goes on to state that the opinion does not specifically address the question of diplomatic assurances in the context of extraordinary rendition and I note that Mr. Montgomery mentioned this to refute Ms Egan's argument.

The kernel of this is that when one listens to both sides one hears arguments put forward and refuted. This is an emotive issue for anyone concerned about human rights. The Government has argued, apparently soundly, that it is complying with human rights law, the commission is concerned about human rights and the perception exists that it believes Ireland may have been implicated in extraordinary rendition. The commission suggests we need a system that ensures extraordinary rendition does not happen in this jurisdiction. Certain members of the public are not convinced by the assurances they have received from a friendly nation, though this is a judgment people must make as individuals.

Mr. Montgomery mentioned seven cases in which aircraft were investigated.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

I mentioned that seven cases were investigated on foot of complaints made.

Deputy Billy Timmins

It is probably unreasonable to expect members of the general public to phone the Garda in Shannon suggesting an aircraft travelling from A to B should be inspected. It would be very difficult to access such information, even if one were parked on the runway. The Government should be more proactive in ensuring the commitment given in the programme for Government is implemented. While I note that the Garda Commissioner is responsible for the operation of the Garda Síochána, perhaps we could more proactive in our spot checks on aircraft. Perhaps Mr. O'Leary of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform could outline for us the training in the protection of human rights gardaí receive. Do specialists operate around our ports and airports to check for human rights abuses?

I thank the witnesses for their contributions and detailed presentations; both Ms Egan and Mr. Montgomery put forward good cases. Extraordinary rendition is totally unacceptable and it is imperative we ensure it does not happen in our jurisdiction. We have received assurances on this from a friendly nation, and I respect them, but to deal with the concerns of some people we should increase the number of spot checks and take a more proactive approach. I would not go so far as to support all of the commission's recommendations as I feel many are not necessary at the moment.

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

I thank the members of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the officials from the relevant Departments for being here this afternoon to discuss this issue, which is to the forefront of many people's minds. I was glad to hear Dr. Manning say that this State fully complies with all human rights obligations both at home and abroad. That was stated in the original submission. It is important that we discuss this today. It is stated in the programme for Government that the Department of Foreign Affairs takes this issue very seriously and, as has been outlined by Mr. Montgomery, the State has gone to some lengths to make sure these practices do not occur on Irish soil and that we do not facilitate them. There is no disagreement from any political grouping or party, or Independents, that we must do all we can to make sure Ireland is not complicit with such actions as extraordinary rendition.

Ms Egan stated in her submission: "The views of the commission are based on our firm belief that there is credible evidence already in the public domain that Shannon Airport has been used by specific planes used in 'extraordinary rendition' circuits". I would like to hear some more detail in this regard. No evidence in this regard was obtained from the seven investigations conducted by the Garda. I ask Ms Egan to expand on this.

The commission is seeking to have an independent regime of inspection established. Mr. Montgomery stated that no other country in the EU has gone as far as the commission would wish. What form would this take? There was talk earlier of allocation of Garda substations and specific Garda resources to the investigation of allegations such as those made about Shannon. My concern is that specific Garda resources may be set aside for this despite a lack of evidence that these actions are taking place. What effect would this have? What resources are we talking about?

While detailing the recommendations of the commission, Ms Egan mentioned that the inspection regime should be properly resourced and overseen by an independent body. She also mentioned the possibility of a national preventative mechanism. How would that work? I am trying to elucidate how we can assist this effort in real terms. It is all very well to state what we would like. On the basis of the correspondence between the Department and the commission and the work that has been carried out by the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Transport and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I believe that since an early stage we have been to the forefront in dealing with this issue. Mr. Montgomery mentioned that this was raised back in 2003, before it became a major issue in the public domain.

The commission seeks the establishment of a system whereby any complaint to the Garda about an aircraft results in a search. We are all dealing in our constituencies with issues to do with Garda resources. How would this system work in real terms? The recommendation of the commission is that if I telephone the Garda to say I am suspicious about a certain aeroplane, that will lead to a search, as will every other complaint. I do not believe this is practical.

Senator David Norris

I am disappointed by the responses of the first two speakers, who seem to be hedging their bets. It is important to put on the record of this meeting what we are talking about when we refer to extraordinary rendition. On page 7 of the report of the Irish Human Rights Commission, Extraordinary Rendition: A Review of Ireland's Human Rights Obligations, it is stated:

The term "extraordinary rendition" is a violation of language. It is a euphemism, a deliberately opaque phrase to describe the forcible kidnapping of an individual by the agents of a State and the transfer of that person to a secret prison in another State where s/he can be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and be interrogated and detained indefinitely without recourse to the courts, to lawyers or to any of the mechanisms set up to protect the human rights of an individual. "Extraordinary rendition" may lead to "enforced disappearances" whereby an individual is not heard of again. It is a practice designed to circumvent and set at naught the human rights principles and practices that have developed over decades to protect the rights of those under investigation or in detention.

That is what we are talking about today. For this reason I find certain aspects of the Government's response sleazy and disgusting. For example, in the statement by Mr. Montgomery, who I know is a decent man and with whom I sympathise for having to be involved in this morally revolting situation, the attempt to defend the Government's position is outrageous. What is happening here is that the Government is seeking to protect itself. It should seek to protect the potential and real victims of torture but it is not doing so. Instead, it is trying to provide alibis for itself as it clearly turned a blind eye to American misdoing for a perceived financial benefit to the State.

An enormous number of legal precedents have demonstrated that the undertakings by the US Government in this regard have no legal force. This is a fact and the Government knows it. The persons who gave these undertakings are strangers to the truth, or at least they have a very different understanding of it. Ms Condoleezza Rice apparently gave an undertaking that torture was not used by the United States, yet her Administration attempted to legislate for practices such as waterboarding, which involves partial drowning of suspects who have not been given any chance to put their cases in public. This is precisely the type of thing that was done by the Gestapo in the Avenue Foch. It is what German and Japanese officers indicted for war crimes were sentenced for. Yet Dr. Rice apparently does not think it is torture. This is the undertaking on which we are relying, in defiance of international practice, in order to cover ourselves.

Another thing I find sleazy and completely unacceptable is this red herring statement that there is no proof such people were brought through Ireland. There were no allegations. What I and others are concerned about, and on which we have never received a direct answer, is the fact that these aeroplanes have been refuelled here on an unbroken rendition circuit. I have put this on the record of the Seanad and this committee time and time again. I ask Mr. Montgomery to answer a question on behalf of the Government, although I am not accusing him personally of anything. Does the Government accept that planes participating in an unbroken rendition circuit were refuelled at Shannon Airport on a number of occasions? I remind Mr. Montgomery before he answers that this has been held in a number of courts to be a matter of fact.

I found the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, regarding people such as Edward Horgan to be utterly deplorable. He described them as "self-appointed" peace activists and derided them. Without the evidence produced by Edward Horgan and others, people such as me would have had great difficulty in raising this issue and having it considered by a special committee that was half-established and then blown out of the water in very suspicious circumstances. I have the records of these planes. These are the facts. It is thanks to Ed Horgan and his friends that we have them. How dare our Minister for Foreign Affairs attempt to denigrate people who have done the work he should have been doing, and then try to deride them and describe them as "self-appointed" peace activists? If they are self-appointed it is because the Government is in dereliction of its plain and clear duty. Do they accept that these planes exist? The facts are quite clear. Will they guarantee that such named planes will not be permitted to use Irish airspace in future? We have a list of planes that have had no other visibility except as planes involved in the kidnapping and torture of suspects. This list, which I have drawn to the attention of the House, includes planes as recently as 10 December 2007, within the past ten days or so. I will mention the series of planes and give the number. I would like if the delegation could comment on the events of 30 November 2007 when a request was made by Conor Cregan and Edward Horgan to the Garda to search a known CIA related aircraft No. N478GS that was due to arrive at Shannon. This plane has been criminally implicated in rendition. However, instead of searching it, the Garda arrested and searched Mr. Horgan and Mr. Cregan. I wonder if that is our attitude. In other words, if an ordinary citizen makes a complaint and, in this case, somebody with a well known track record in this area, is it an appropriate response by the Garda to arrest him? Is this what the Government is putting forward as an appropriate response and an appropriate measure?

I will comment on part of the summary note for the information of the Irish Commission on Human Rights, No. 4, about a meeting with the US Embassy on 29 September 2005. The Irish side recalled that the Minister for Foreign Affairs had, in reply to a parliamentary question in recent months, spelled out the US assurances in the following terms which were read carefully and in full to the US side:

The Government have on several occasions made clear to the US authorities that it will be illegal to transit persons for rendition purposes through Irish territory without the express permission of the Irish authorities acting in accordance with Irish and international law. The US authorities confirm they have not done so and do not do so.

How could they possibly do it? This is nonsense. How could the Irish Government ever give permission? I really do not understand what is going on here? My concerns — and I have been involved in this for quite a long time — have never been assuaged because the issue has not been honestly addressed. The Government side appears only concerned and only interested in covering its own position.

I also point to the fact that one of these victims has been awarded $10 million in compensation. Is the Government aware that persons, for example, who may or may not have been transited through Irish airspace — and I have never said they were — but whose rendition was facilitated by refuelling have a case against Ireland in international law. I wonder if the Government will feel happy about being dragged before an international court and made pay compensation to these people.

I congratulate Dr. Manning, Commissioner Egan and Mr. Hogan for living up to the finest principles of the protection of human rights here. I deplore the attitude of the Government which has been completely evasive from day one and I never want to hear again this nonsense about defending a position that has not been attacked. Do not worry about this business of whether people were taken through, answer the question: were planes refuelled? Can that situation occur again and is there any prospect that the list of those planes which have been criminally implicated in this illegal and vicious process of rendition will be excluded as a matter of course from Irish airspace?

Deputy Alan Shatter

I thank all the speakers for dealing with what is a very serious issue. There is no doubt that extraordinary rendition is wrong. It is a major error on the part of the United States that it has engaged in this activity. It is easy for us to take a simplistic view of this. There is a reason the United States engage in this activity. It was in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 and what was perceived by the United States Administration as that country being at risk of ongoing terrorist attack from fundamentalists who were happy to put on television and on the web presentations of them executing and beheading people. The United States was of the view that it had to take extraordinary measures to counteract the threat posed by fundamentalist, Muslim extremists who had no respect for democratic principle and who were happy to use the freedoms of democracy to advance their own aims. That is the reason it has happened, but it should not have happened. The value of democracy is that democracies protect the constitutional rights of individuals and they do not behave in the manner in which the terrorists behave who might threaten those democracies. I want to make my position absolutely clear. This practice is completely and utterly wrong.

Senator Norris, in perhaps more colourful language, addressed the issue of rendition. We also need to understand on occasions the context while acknowledging it is completely and utterly wrong. There is now clearly incontrovertible evidence that it has been taking place. There was much debate on this from 2003 to 2005 until the two cases documented in the report, of the individuals who, without a shadow of a doubt, have been subjected to it and whose cases have been very well highlighted. However, this meeting is not about extraordinary rendition simpliciter. There is no one in this State who supports the concept of extraordinary rendition or the activity. In fairness to the Government, it is clear that it is something to which it is opposed. As a State that has good relationships with the United States, on occasions one gets one’s best advice from one’s friends.

The Government's approach to this issue perhaps was slow in take-off but it has been, in fairness, relatively consistent in making our views known, and it is right that our views are made known. We do not need to assume that we are complicit, as Senator Norris does. I admit I have some doubts about the approach of the Human Rights Commission in some of the assumptions it makes.

I would like to ask questions about what is an important report, although it comes from a particular perspective. There are questions worth asking of the commission just as there are some questions worth asking of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Before doing so, I want to make a particular point in response to Senator Norris. He referred to the peace activists groups who produced information for this committee, for the Department and for the Commission on Human Rights and the details of various flights that have been taking place. All that information is interesting and valuable but there are two issues of credibility that unfortunately arise in this context. We have a unique group of peace activitists here who are obsessed by everything the United States does. In this area, they are entitled to look at it, but the day we see them protesting outside the Iranian Embassy against the violation of human rights or protesting about what the Russians were doing killing people on the streets of London or the day—

Senator David Norris

I do not recall seeing the Deputy there.

Deputy Shatter

I am talking about the human rights organisations.

Senator David Norris

I have been there and I have not seen the Deputy outside the Iranian Embassy recently.

Deputy Shatter

I am talking about the so-called peace activists organisations, not the Human Rights Commission or anybody associated with it. I have not seen them protesting outside the Chinese Embassy at the number of people who have disappeared in China and have been put in what in Soviet Union times were regarded as gulags but there is a different name now for them in China. There is an obsession about the United States and there is a risk that this obsession leads to conclusions being drawn for which there is no evidence. What we have is evidence of a variety of planes which, in fairness to the commission, have form, to use a non-legal term, that in some instances may be associated with renditions of some description. Thousands of flights go through Shannon. I appreciate Senator Norris finds it offensive that the Department of Foreign Affairs points it out but what screams out of this report and what has been said is that there is not a single instance of an individual having passed through Shannon on a flight by way of extraordinary rendition. I understand from this report, and it was repeated here today, that planes are passing through Shannon that we know to have been involved in extraordinary rendition, not that they were involved at any particular time when passing through Shannon. It is similar to a car being parked in Grafton Street which we know was involved in a bank raid on one occasion because someone drove that car away from the bank.

Senator David Norris

And then ignore it.

Deputy Alan Shatter

We do not assume every car driven around town is used for bank robberies or that every person who drives it is engaged in bank robberies. A conclusion is reached that planes were involved, therefore, those planes going through Shannon were involved.

In the context of the seven cases reported on, once that issue was examined, no one had any evidence that could be relied upon to substantiate that the United States has been using Shannon Airport to transport prisoners through Shannon who are being held by that country using the unacceptable concept of extraordinary rendition. The Minister, who I do not always defend, is being attacked for stating the facts as he knows them.

In the context of the report, the Irish Human Rights Commission had a role in investigating this issue. It was a cause of genuine concern to people but it is interesting to consider what we are told. We are told the commission's initial interest in this matter arose when it sent an initial letter in December 2005 on the basis that the State may be in breach of its human rights obligations by failing to investigate claims that Shannon Airport might be being used for this purpose. Those claims that it might be happening were made by some groups or organisations. It was not the case that the commission had any information that it had happened. We are told claims had been raised in the Irish media. I read material every day in the Irish media, often issues I have been involved in, and wonder who is writing the fiction that is presented as fact on occasion.

Amnesty International reported on 5 December that six aeroplanes used by the Central Intelligence Agency for extraordinary rendition had made 800 flights in and out of European air space, which included 50 flights landing at Shannon. Six planes had made 800 flights around Europe. It is not suggested that every time these planes took off they were involved in extraordinary rendition.

I accept, and the point was made by the commission and by other speakers, that it is extraordinarily difficult to know whether the aeroplane is being used for extraordinary rendition. That is why I assume the commission is suggesting there should be some form of checks undertaken or inspection regime put in place. Does the commission have any information of any description on which it can rely that indicates that, other than the one instance in 2004 when this may have occurred, there has been any subsequent occasion when on a single flight through Ireland the extraordinary rendition has been taking place? In other words, in violation of international human rights and our Constitution, someone has been held illegally on that plane. Does the commission have available to it any information of any description on which it can be said that this Government, relying on the diplomatic assurances given at various levels by the United States to this country, has been sold a pup and is relying on assurances that are clearly untrue?

I accept extraordinary rendition has taken place, and may still be taking place, and that the United States is wrong to engage in that activity but we do not have at a European level any concrete evidence that can be relied upon that we are violating our international obligations.

It is easy to make the type of attractive presentation Senator Norris made. It is easy to say we should expect everything everywhere and assume the worst. One of the reasons for assuming the worst is because the United States initially did not own up to the activities in which it was engaging. For many people there has been a credibility gap on the trustworthiness of assurances given and what has been said on the international plane on issues of this nature.

This country has a very close relationship with the United States and has relied on the diplomatic intervention and assurances given by successive Presidents of the United States and other members of successive Administrations to bring about peace in Northern Ireland. We found the United States Administrations, in their contribution in that area, to be reliable, trustworthy and helpful to this State.

I want to ask a simple question. Why must we assume, in dealing with this state on an issue of controversy that would result in an outcry here should we be misled, that we are being misled in this particular area? That is a reasonable question. I say that as someone who is committed to human rights but who on occasion does not want to go along with the tabloid or populist view emanating from some quarters in Irish society that the United States is always wrong in everything it does and can never be relied upon, except by the hundreds of thousands of people who want to go there from this country either as tourists, or to live permanently, with Ministers travelling there to try to persuade Congress to make those Irish people living illegally in United States legal. We have a strange view of America in this country. We like taking shots at it but much of the time we want its assistance on a broad range of issues that affect us. I want something more concrete.

I found it interesting reading the detail of this report and hearing what Mr. Montgomery, who has been attacked, had to say on a number of issues.

Senator David Norris

I must correct that, Chairman. I did not attack Mr. Montgomery; I attacked the statement and the policy of the Government. I made it very clear I was not attacking Mr. Montgomery. I think Deputy Shatter—

Chairman

In fairness to Deputy Shatter—

Deputy Alan Shatter

I am about to conclude, Chairman, if Senator Norris would allow me make the points I want to make. The letter sent by the Government to the commission on 14 November 2007 states that, as indicated earlier, the extensive investigations conducted by the European Parliament's temporary committee and by Senator Marty for the Council of Europe have revealed no evidence or even a specific allegation that any person on any occasion has been subject to extraordinary rendition through Ireland.

It states also that the overall impression given by the draft review that there are or have been numerous flights through Ireland involving extraordinary rendition activity fails to acknowledge, particularly in the many references to "CIA planes involved in extraordinary rendition", that the civil aircraft which it is proposed to search under this regime are in fact chartered to different users on an ongoing basis as was confirmed, for example, in a recent incident drawn to our attention.

It states further that the actual number of aircraft ever identified as transiting Ireland in any relatively close time proximity to an alleged extraordinary rendition operation elsewhere is no more than four over a period of a number of years, most recently in 2004. We are told then that the Council of Europe, in the context of the report published, felt we were one of the nine states that did not need to be investigated further.

I would like the commission to comment on the particular extract that I have read out. Can the commission explain — and I will put the same question to the Department of Foreign Affairs — the recommendation that the State should introduce an effective inspection regime as a matter of urgency? Can the commission's representative detail the inspection regime it would envisage should be put in place, as well as how it would work and what aircraft it would inspect? Would it involve every charter plane that lands at Shannon, Dublin and Cork airports, or would it be confined to Shannon? Should it have particular origins? Should it be associated purely with the United States or the CIA? Is it suggested — in the context of what we know to be the reality, that some European Union countries may indeed have been complicit in extraordinary rendition — that we should be looking at flights that they are involved in? What specific detail does the commission believe should be put in place concerning the regime, and what Garda involvement should it have? What does the commission believe would be its costing? How would it work in practice? That is an important question, to tease out how we would implement the recommendation that has been made. At any particular point in time, has the commission costed it? When human rights are at stake one cannot put a price on them. One must protect the human rights of individuals but there must be a credible reason for putting in place a regime such as that being proposed. I would appreciate the commission's response to those questions.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I welcome Dr. Manning and it is lovely to see him back again. I thank both sides for their presentations, which have given me a chance not alone to follow the scripts but also to listen to what Deputy Shatter had to say. As I would ask the very same questions that Deputy Shatter outlined, I will not hold up the meeting. It is horrific to think of the extraordinary rendition process being used to transport prisoners and knowingly subject them to degradation and ill-treatment. It goes without saying that everyone is thinking the same thing as regards extraordinary rendition. However, Mr. Montgomery said that the Government was fully satisfied that it is entitled to rely on the categoric assurance received from the United States. He also spoke about the inspection regime in which the Garda Síochána is involved and is being given inside information as to how to conduct inspections.

Commissioner Suzanne Egan referred to the view the commission "first expressed two years ago that the reliance being placed by the Government on the diplomatic assurances it sought and obtained from the US government is not sufficient to comply with the State's obligation to prevent torture". However, she did not say why it is insufficient. She then stated: "The second main conclusion reached in the review, which may be characterised as a recommendation, is that in order to ensure full compliance with its human rights obligations, the State should put in place a reliable and independently verifiable system of inspection". I do not know what she means by that. Given what the Government has said, I am happy with the system that is in place. I do not know what more could be done in that regard. I would like Commissioner Egan to comment on that point.

This is a good meeting that has cleared the air quite well for me.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I thank the representatives for their presentations. Mr. Montgomery summed it up well by saying that the nub of the difference is whether or not we choose to believe the assurances. I can remember my history books stating the absolute assurances that no American bombing was going on in Cambodia or Laos, but that turned out not to be the case. Similarly, the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction turned out not to be the case either. As Deputy Shatter said, there is a bit of form here. I tend to be more of a realist and perhaps a cynic, as I come from the mean streets and would not take those assurances at face value.

The press release of 11 December slightly uncharitably said that activist groups should not be given the same credence as assurances from the United States. According to the report, Amnesty International and other groups clearly have concerns about extraordinary rendition. We do need to put an inspection regime in place for two reasons. First, there could be a legal issue for the country. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the whole issue is throwing a cloud over the relationship between Ireland and one of our most friendly allies. It is therefore in everybody's interest for this matter to be lifted.

When such doubts exist, it can only be done by an independent, investigative regime. The seven cases cited are almost farcical. They do not constitute a checking regime. They have more in common with the Keystone Cops than a 21st century law-enforcement agency. We need to see a real-time investigation. Deputy O'Brien mentioned difficulties in carrying out checks by gardaí in all constituencies. There is no point in turning up an hour late to check planes at Shannon because they will be half way to Uzbekistan. We must do it in real time. Six months later is no good because the evidence will not be there. We need to put in place a regime that looks at real-rime investigations. We can do so according to the Venice Commission opinion. Is it a question of will on our part or is it a question of resources? What do we need to do to be able to establish an independent investigative regime?

Senator Mark Daly

Given both reports, we are all agreed that kidnapping is wrong. Particular news agencies and governments use the term "collateral damage", which means killing innocent people. "Extraordinary rendition" means kidnapping and torture. We are discussing the violation of domestic and international law through the kidnapping of people without evidence of their involvement in terrorist activities just because of a suspicion of their involvement in activities. We are now proposing to ignore our laws and procedures based on suspicion, which is all we have. I do not propose that Ireland should go down that road.

Senator Norris and I both attended a meeting with the United Nations human rights commissioner. I asked her two questions, namely, what we were doing wrong and what we could do to help her. She spoke about Shannon but said that as far as she was concerned — I am open to correction if I am wrong — because the spotlight had been put on it, it seemed to have been ignored. The evidence of 10 December suggests otherwise, however. We are talking about the United Nations human rights commission.

Senator David Norris

She expressed her strong concern about Shannon. That was one of the first points she made.

Chairman

Senator Norris should allow Senator Daly to continue.

Senator David Norris

The committee is entitled to the facts.

Chairman

Some people might have disagreed with Senator Norris but they just kept quiet and let him have his say. He should let Senator Daly continue and Senator Daly should address his comments through the Chair.

Senator Mark Daly

She made the point that the spotlight had been put on Shannon and it was not the issue that it was any more. Of course, we have this evidence but all we have is suspicion. If we go down the same road as other governments which act on suspicion and ignore the law then we will be as bad as them. Obviously, this Government will never support extraordinary rendition.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

There is unanimity around the table that extraordinary rendition is wrong. The issue in our own country has been raised with the President of the United States by the Taoiseach. I have listened attentively to the debate. There have been speakers on two opposing sides but nobody has produced any evidence that this country has been used for extraordinary rendition. That is an important point in the context of how we move forward. It also has been pointed out that 46 countries made submissions to the Council of Europe and Ireland was one of only nine which did not require further inquiry into what was being done. The other point is that if we were to introduce such a regime, we would be the first member state of the European Union to do so. A case has not been made for introducing an inspection regime. I am satisfied with the response that has been made on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Dr. Maurice Manning

With the permission of the Chair, I will ask Mr. Hogan to begin the reply.

Mr. Des Hogan

There have been a number of questions. I will address them and then we can pick up on any issues which remain outstanding.

One of the first questions put to the commission was that of evidence, which was raised by Deputy O'Brien. There is a question of evidence here. It is something of a chicken and egg situation, to which we might return. There were two pan-European investigations, the first of which was the European Parliament's report published in January which was followed by the resolution in February. I refer the committee to paragraph 123 of that report where it expressed serious concerns about the 147 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Irish airports that on many occasions came from and were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits. The report, "deplores the stopovers in Ireland of aircraft which have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Omar and Maher Arar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zari". It considered, at paragraph 25, "that, in the absence of a system of random searches, a ban should be imposed on all CIA-operated aircraft landing in Ireland".

Turning to the second European report, which is that of the Parliamentary Assembly report or the first Marty report, the question of nine countries being commended was raised. Paragraph 289, referring to "stopovers for flights involving the unlawful transfer of detainees" includes Ireland, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Greece and Italy.

The question of evidence is a difficult one. The commission has statutory functions to review law and practice in the State. A question that arises is what are the positive obligations on the State required to prevent torture and ill-treatment as defined under the international standards. I might come back to that in a moment.

The commission was asked by Deputy O'Brien to spell out what pragmatic recommendations it might have on an inspection regime. The first point to make is that we speak of an inspection regime, rather than a complaints regime. At present we have a complaints regime where a citizen of the State is required, outside the perimeter fence, to identify a suspicious aircraft and then to make a complaint to the Garda Síochána which, on foot of that complaint, will investigate if a reasonable suspicion is deemed appropriate.

We state it is our view that under international human rights law the State must take positive measures and certain steps. We suggest an inspection regime. We have not been prescriptive in terms of what that regime should look at in terms of what Deputy Shatter asked earlier, but it could be quite a straightforward proposition. Our suggestion relates to aircraft on which evidence of suspicious activity exists. This is a small number of aircraft. Senator Norris made reference to some of them, and to some of the reports already mentioned. In our report we refer to those same aircraft or where suspicious evidence exists.

Without being prescriptive, there are some pragmatic possibilities such as those aircraft being required to give their details, in terms of purpose, destination and passengers on board, when coming to the State, and there being a desk exercise by which they could be monitored and which would be supplemented by spot checks. We are not stating necessarily that it should be done by the Garda Síochána. In other areas there are different inspection authorities who would have the requisite powers and that is why we state that, if necessary, legislation should be introduced to ensure that.

To address the fear that too many civil aircraft would be inconvenienced when they have nothing to do with this illegal practice, once such a system was under way many of those suspicions could be narrowed down to realistic ones. The commission thinks we are not looking at a resource-intensive practice here. It could be quite practical. It would be a desk exercise supplemented by proper inspectors conducting random spot checks. While Shannon Airport has been the subject of allegations up to now, the Department statement that it is easy for civil aircraft to change details to evade monitoring and therefore it may have to look at other aircraft is not a good reason not to have an inspection regime.

Our point about the seven cases referred to — we referred to six cases in our report — is that they seem to be complaints-driven and there is little detail in terms of the time span between the complaint being made and the investigation. Leaving out the most recent case to which we do not refer in our report, we stated that to our knowledge no aircraft had been inspected by the Garda Síochána. That is our information. We are not an inspection regime in terms of getting beyond the perimeter fence in Shannon and this is one of our difficulties.

On the question of diplomatic assurances, the commission has never questioned whether the Department — correctly, some would say — had sought and received assurances from the US Government on the issue of non-transit of extraordinary rendition persons through Ireland. What we have stated is that under international law such assurances are not enough. They need to be supplemented. The reason we have said so is referred to in our report. We refer to what Mr. Manfred Novak, the UN special rapporteur on torture in August 2005, stated about diplomatic assurances. He stated that diplomatic assurances were unreliable and ineffective in the protection against torture and ill-treatment, that such assurances have proven to be no guarantee against torture, that they are not legally binding and therefore they carry no legal effect and no accountability if breached.

It is not a question of believing or not believing a close, friendly state. The situation which the commission has reviewed pursuant to its statutory functions is that it is now known that extraordinary rendition exists. Some of the practices involved in extraordinary rendition are now known, and the commissioner, Ms Egan, referred to those.

The prohibition of torture is an absolute obligation on states and it requires that we take positive measures to ensure that it cannot possibly occur. We do not want to be in a position in the State in a few years' time where somebody may allege that he or she has been rendered through the State illegally and we cannot prove the opposite. The idea of an inspection regime is that we would be able to clearly verify how this could happen and the situation in which it could be effected.

We have recommended that complaints to the Garda Síochána about suspicious relevant aircraft should be investigated. Once an inspection regime got underway, one would expect that such investigations, in terms of relevant aircraft and reasonable suspicions, could be narrowed down to the grounds outlined.

The deterrent value of an inspection regime should never be underestimated. We, in Ireland, have a strong and noble record in terms of upholding human rights. We are proud of what we do and we know the Department also does its best on the international stage. We consider that this is what we can do and Ireland would be showing real leadership internationally on this issue.

We are an independent national human rights institution. Our statutory remit relates to the Republic of Ireland and that is where our recommendations are directed.

Mr. Ken O’Leary

Deputy Timmins raised the issue of human rights training for gardaí. Significant developments have taken place in recent years in this regard. Under the Garda Síochaná Act 2005, one of the objectives of members is to vindicate the human rights of every individual. Each member of the force must make a declaration upholding human rights. A series of training initiatives involving gardaí at all levels has been implemented. They rely on human rights practitioners and a significant element of Garda training covers human rights matters. The Minister has brought to the Garda Commissioner's attention what the programme for Government states about the force being aware of the issues that arise relating to rendition under the law. The Commissioner is pursuing that. There have been many positive developments.

With regard to the general question of the powers of the Garda, we provided a briefing note to the committee, which broadly outlines them. However, Garda powers arise where it has reasonable cause to pursue certain activities and it is the parallel as in any area of the law. Rendition under our criminal law is covered by a range of offences and that is not disputed. The Garda has the powers to pursue rendition. The force is a creature of the law and it can only implement its powers in accordance with the law. It is not subject to direction from anyone. Gardaí must form a view in the circumstances of a particular case as to whether they have reasonable cause to take action. That means spot checks, which require powers of entry and so on under our legal framework, but they are not provided for. The Garda pursues whatever information is made available to it in accordance with the legal regime that applies.

Deputy Shatter raised an issue with the Human Rights Commission about the form of an inspection regime and the commission mentioned it was not prescriptive, but whether that would have to be specifically provided for in legislation is an issue that would arise. Who then under the legislation would decide other than the Garda which aeroplanes would be put in the category for searching and so on? The Garda pursues as far as it can information it receives but the force is quite properly subject to legal powers.

Chairman

A division has been called so I will suspend the meeting until 4 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.

Chairman

We will resume in public session.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

Mr. Murphy will speak on his brief and I will make a few remarks afterwards.

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

I will wait until the presentations are finished before I ask my supplementary questions.

Mr. John Murphy

I wish to put our civil aviation regime in perspective. Ireland is responsible for a very large airspace, consisting of approximately 450,000 sq. km. of airspace out into the middle of the Atlantic. A very large number of flights fly through Irish airspace, including about 90% of transatlantic aviation flying through Irish-controlled airspace, approximately 50,000 flights a year. Shannon Airport has about 4,000 general aviation flights a year. Any form of inspection regime must be considered against that background.

The international civil aviation regime is a fairly permissive regime designed to liberalise civil aviation. An important consideration is that safety is paramount. The provisions that allow flights to make technical stops, such as to refuel for purposes other than for traffic purposes, are designed to ensure that safety is paramount. This is the main reason under the Chicago Convention one is not required to seek prior permission for a technical stop.

We have been looking at the issues arising from the Council of Europe report and from other reports in conjunction with a number of other member states. Within IKO, Ireland is part of a group of seven states which together form a constituency for electing one Council member. This group includes Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and soon to be joined by Portugal. We have been looking at the issues that arise from these reports and focusing in particular on what constitutes a state aircraft and what are the issues arising from the various diplomatic provisions governing such aircraft. This work is at an early stage.

Ireland is the only member state in that group which has sought and received the level of assurances from the United States in the context of renditions. No other member state has sought to put in place a system of inspections along the lines recommended by the Irish Human Rights Commission. We would find ourselves not so much giving leadership but being an outlier if we were on the one hand to seek and obtain the level of assurances we have received and on the other hand to then seek to put in place a much more onerous system of inspections than anybody else has decided to implement.

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

I thank the commission and the Department for answering the questions. We are all concerned for the human rights of individuals and wish to ensure that we do the right thing and that Ireland is not found wanting.

I refer to Mr. Hogan's response regarding the monitoring and inspections. He said we could have a desk-bound service which did not necessarily involve many specific searches of aeroplanes. It also depends on resources, whether we like it or not.

I refer to the third point of the summary of the commission's recommendations which states that in any event, any complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána concerning an aircraft possibly engaged in extraordinary rendition, should be investigated immediately, including inspection of the aircraft by the member or members concerned. This seems to me to be very prescriptive. As Mr. Murphy stated, 50,000 flights come into Shannon every year. I could decide I want to complain about every single one of them. This would create a serious situation for a Garda sub-station. People are entitled to complain but I refer to details of some of the complaints made. For instance, flight N259SK in September was referred to by Mr. Hogan and it was found that it contained people going on a golfing holiday.

Senator David Norris

Oh, come on.

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

I did not interrupt Senator Norris. These were complaints made, which were investigated. It was found there was nothing wrong in that instance. There are six other instances mentioned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I refer to Nos. N44CX of February 2006 and in November 2005, N37P at Shannon Airport. If the September flight is mentioned in the report — the dates are written in the American format — I do not see the other flights that have been complained about and on which investigations have been done, mentioned here. There may be a reason that this flight on 20 September 2007, N259SK, which landed at Shannon, was mentioned. It is included in the dossier on flights which were complained about. It is stated it was investigated but no problems were found. The other six flights mentioned do not appear to be in the dossier. Are we cherry-picking which ones are being included?

Senator David Norris

I am grateful for the opportunity to return with a question. I wish to comment on the extraordinary question posed by Deputy Shatter; if a motor car found to be incriminated in a criminal activity was located in Grafton Street, would it be outrageous if the Garda investigated it? It would be outrageous if it did not. That is how Omagh happened. If such a car taken in the Palestinian territories was left in Ben Yehuda Street I am sure Deputy Shatter would be very grateful that the Israeli police would examine it. I cannot understand the logic of that outrageous and ridiculous suggestion.

On the business of searching, I am very glad that Deputy Higgins has been able to join us. I wrote a complaint to the Garda Commissioner and as a result, two very senior gardaí were appointed to meet with me and Deputy Higgins. They told us unambiguously that they had no power to go on board the aircraft.

I ask Mr. O'Leary to comment. I have a letter signed by a reputable member of the public which says that this gentleman was informed by a detective superintendent at Garda Headquarters that a letter of advice from the Attorney General's office to the legal section of Garda Headquarters was in existence and that it was as a result of this letter of advice that CIA aeroplanes were not being searched. Does such a letter of advice exist and will it be made available to this committee so that we can see what level of advice is being given by the Attorney General to the Garda?

With regard to particular searches, I wish to point out that it was only due to a cleaning lady that a man in shackles was found, in violation of the American undertakings. It so happened that he was one of their own staff who was being held prisoner, but he was there, and they broke the law by doing that. We know that.

I would like to ask about two aeroplanes, N475LC and N478GS, which have passed through Shannon Airport over the last six weeks and are notorious for their specific involvement in the rendition process. Is it appropriate that they should be hosted in Shannon Airport once again when we know their function is to engage in rendition? Can any member of the committee justify that? Given that we know these aeroplanes have been used for nothing else, why have they not been inspected? We are not talking about every single aeroplane. Many aeroplanes pass through Irish airspace quite legitimately. A very small proportion of them have registration numbers, however, which, as we know perfectly well, have been identified in reports on this issue published by bodies like the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. We know what these aeroplanes are used for. How is it tolerable that they should be allowed through Irish airspace without anybody batting an eyelid?

Those are the questions which need to be answered. I ask for a clear response from Mr. Montgomery. Does the Government of Ireland accept that aeroplanes involved in the rendition circuit have been refuelled at Shannon Airport? I have been asking that question for some time, but I have not yet been given a reply. I am invariably told that no one has been found on the aeroplanes being transported through this country. I do not want to hear that response again. It does not address the question I have asked. I want to know whether the Government accepts that aeroplanes involved in rendition have been refuelled here. Does the Government acknowledge its awareness of this fact or not?

Chairman

I apologised on behalf of Deputy Higgins earlier in the meeting. The members of the delegations are aware that he was unable to be here earlier.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I am grateful to the Chairman. I apologise to our guests. I was replying to a debate in the Dáil on a Private Members' Bill I have drawn up — the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2007 — so it would have been an even greater discourtesy to have missed the contributions of those who were supporting the Bill and, more importantly, those who were disagreeing with it.

I would like to make a couple of small points. I am glad that representatives of the Irish Human Rights Commission, in particular, and the Department of Foreign Affairs are present at this meeting. I would like to remind the committee of a strange statement that was made after the publication of the Irish Human Rights Commission's report. I have to rely on my memory to do so because I have not had time to go to my office. It was suggested that the commission was drawing on general principles of jurisprudence rather than pointing to specific provisions in statute law. That might seem like an arcane comment that is not of much interest to anybody, but it is of immense interest. It seems to me that the suggestion that we should be bound by what is written in the letter of the law represents a resiling from the previous commitment of the Department of Foreign Affairs to have human rights at the centre of its policies, which—

Senator David Norris

Hear, hear.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

—can be traced back to the White Paper on Foreign Policy, published when the former Deputy, Mr. Dick Spring, was Minister for Foreign Affairs. This statement, which is of immense significance, caused great distress among those who feel there is nothing abstract about human rights.

The arguments which are made about this issue are often somewhat abstract. I refer, for example, to the comprehensive and long reply given by the Government to the questionnaire sent out by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. I have seen the reply in question. When the Government was asked whether it has the legal capacity to ensure it is in compliance with the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it bravely responded that it has such capacity in the form of two Acts, including the civil aviation Act. It omitted to point out, in its response to the questionnaire, that it has not exercised the Acts in question. Therefore, the office of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has formed the impression that Ireland is a potentially compliant state. It has decided that while we are able to answer all of its questions, we are being less than full in the way we are doing so.

I am worried about an very important aspect of this debate, namely, the way people like Edward Horgan are being depicted in commentaries about what is taking place in Shannon. Every Irish citizen should be concerned about the reality of the manner in which the Government is representing the Irish people in this instance. We should be concerned about the interpretation of the Government's actions, both by commission and by silence, as they pertain to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is an exceptionally important convention. If we were dealing with land-mines, for example, the Government would have had to initiate inspections, whether it liked it or not, because the provisions of the Ottawa Convention on land-mines are stronger than the provisions of other conventions. We can speak about the convention, which deals with the production, distribution, sale and transport of land-mines, later in this meeting if the witnesses want to do so. The suggestion that there is an onus on individual Irish citizens to find people in aeroplanes — and to produce photographs, practically — before bringing them to Garda stations is a nonsense.

I am reminded of the former Attorney General of England and Wales, who produced differing opinions on the Iraq War on the same day. I do not doubt that Mr. Montgomery is familiar with that period in recent British history. The first opinion that was offered was that it would be very dangerous to go to war without a second UN resolution. A compliant opinion was offered later the same day that suited Mr. Blair and his Cabinet. This is dangerous stuff. The clear and overwhelming majority of legal opinion, in respect of human rights compliance, suggests that diplomatic assurances in relation to a convention as important as the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are simply insufficient. A political choice has to be made on whether we accept the argument of those who say that there was more than one conversation with the people in question, that they were actually very close and that they mentioned it again when the matter arose again. This is just a hugger-mugger instead of an actual principle. We cannot say we have sought compliance.

I would like to comment on the visit of two senior gardaí to Senator Norris and me. I recall it clearly. They took refuge in a little bit of confusion. They said they have no powers under the criminal justice Acts to board aeroplanes, but they omitted to comment on their powers under the civil aviation Acts. I asked a parliamentary question about whether the Garda has the power under those Acts, including the 1987 Act, to board aeroplanes. The Minister replied that such powers exist, but that is not what has been communicated to Senator Norris and me.

The public should be given more information about the nature of the correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General and the Garda Commissioner. There has been a great deal of reference to this matter in various areas. Such correspondence, for example, where a letter might be sent seeking clarification about what we should be doing in this regard and a letter might be sent back, raises an issue I highlighted when this committee was being established, namely, the difference between what is a security matter and what is not. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or his Department did not contact the Garda in Shannon, a letter could be sent saying the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has never contacted the Garda to say it should not search planes. If, on the other hand, a letter of clarification were to be sought, outlining what we should be doing, and the letter of clarification were to flow between the Office of the Attorney General and the Garda Commissioner, the Department would be able to get away with saying it knows nothing about it. That would not be in the public interest, however.

People have different views about the tactics which should be used to oppose extraordinary rendition and the manner in which the protocols of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment should be observed. It is only fair to ensure those who are making the effort to ensure Ireland complies with the convention are treated fairly. It is not in the public interest to keep to the so-called letter argument, if it exists.

I find it extraordinary that a quasi-governmental document has suggested that it would be an unfriendly act to provide for random inspections. One does not hear that argument as often now. Surely it would be a grossly unfriendly act to prevent a country from showing itself to the international community as being in full compliance with international law, including the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Is that not the case? Given the current climate in the United States, I do not believe the US would object to such a course of action.

I do not understand the reason we are talking in riddles. I will conclude where I began. The statement issued after the publication of the Irish Human Rights Commission report was deeply troubling in that regard. It more or less stated that there is nothing that makes us do it. The use of phrase to the effect that one draws one's conclusions from more general principles of jurisprudence rather than locating them in the specifics of statute law relegates human rights as a principal policy objective in foreign policy and I deeply regret that.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

Mr. Ken O'Leary will make some specific responses to the points raised concerning the Garda when I conclude. Several members discussed the value to be attributed to the US assurances and expressed different views on the weight to be placed on those assurances and the overall nature of the relationship with the United States. I will make the same point, in today's context, that Mr. John Murphy made, namely, that the assurances we obtained were not lightly given. It was not a question of a conversation. The key engagement by the United States involved interagency consultation over a period and the US authorities came back to us in a clear manner. These assurances have not been made available to others. When the issue blew up in the autumn of 2005, the Secretary of State and her officials were very careful, when talking about the generality of European countries, to use a more qualified formula which would be consistent with the existence of rendition operations elsewhere. As I indicated, however, they have not sought to resile from the much clearer, more concrete and more specific assurances we obtained.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins put his finger on one of the key questions, which we could debate all afternoon, namely, the overall weight to be assigned to diplomatic assurances and the jurisprudence which exists in that regard. I reassure the Deputy that I do not recognise what he says about the statement by the Department that we would resile from general principles and seek to rely on statute law. It is more that there is a difference of opinion between us as to how to interpret the case law and what principles to draw from that. The Department has not sought to run away from its general position on this matter.

In regard to Senator Norris's questions, I note he has stated more than once that he has never alleged that individuals have been transited through Shannon Airport for the purposes of rendition. That is a noteworthy acknowledgement. As to whether aeroplanes used by the CIA have passed through Shannon Airport, in my statement I said there was evidence, on the basis of the Council of Europe and European Parliament investigations, of four occasions, I believe, on which aeroplanes passed through in some reasonably close time period. That has been said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as far back as June 2006 when he spoke in the Dáil in a debate on this question.

Senator Hannigan raised the question of assurances and referred to the nature of the individual cases which have been mentioned. In fairness to the Irish Human Rights Commission, it has stated it would regard the current position — whereby complaints are made — as inadequate. On the inspection regime, Mr. O'Leary has put the other side of the argument and the Government's position, as I also did in my opening remarks. I believe the only other specific points raised relate to the Garda and these can be addressed by Mr. O'Leary.

Mr. Ken O’Leary

We circulated a short briefing note in which we set out the powers of the Garda. This is consistent with general advice the Department obtained from the Office of the Attorney General. I do not know of the specific letter to which Senator Norris referred. Some confusion may arise from the fact that there is no power for anyone to inspect, enter or search state aircraft such as foreign military aircraft because such aircraft have sovereign immunity. The issue covered by the note is that for the Garda to exercise its powers of search and entry, it must have evidence or reasonable grounds to suspect that particular acts are taking place. The powers set out in the briefing note are consistent with the advice issued by the Attorney General.

Senator David Norris

Another Department considered it appropriate to continue to refuel aeroplanes which are known to have been involved in rendition. Is it the position of the Department and Government that it is appropriate action for Ireland to refuel named aeroplanes whose registration numbers clearly show they have been involved in rendition?

Mr. Rory Montgomery

I should have addressed that point earlier. As is set out at some length in the correspondence between us, one of the reasons this issue is so difficult is the many different uses to which these aeroplanes are put. They are chartered to many different users on many different occasions. I will quote some authorities on this matter. Senator Marty stated it is evident that not all flights of CIA aircraft participate in renditions. As the Minister stated, there are legitimate reasons the Government of a friendly state might wish to engage in intelligence activities unrelated to renditions. In discussing a specific aeroplane, N85VM, that was allegedly used to transport Mr. Abu Omar, Mr. Stephen Grey, the journalist who has followed this issue most closely, notes that the aircraft is in private ownership and many of its journeys are for private purposes.

The reason the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated at the European Parliament that the figure of 147 movements, on which the Human Rights Commission relies, is inflated by a multiple in that it does not take account of the variety of uses of these aeroplanes which can be used for legitimate purposes when in official use. The point remains, and perhaps I should have stated this more clearly earlier, that in our entire approach to this issue, we have consistently talked about proportionality and reasonableness in approaching a specific inspection regime. The information available to us and set out earlier by me, when placed in the overall context of the number of movements referred to by Mr. Murphy and combined with all the other elements I have mentioned, such as the assurances, have led the Government to its position.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

If the Department were asked to balance the two sets of risks, namely, the risk of making an inspection where nothing is found and the risk of non-compliance with the convention and protocol, it would find that they are not of the same order. If there is an atmosphere in which the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has invoked a rarely used procedure and issued a report, the European Parliament has acted similarly and the use and destinations of the aeroplanes is known — I do not believe the Minister, Deputy Gormley, would suggest the aeroplanes were primarily leased for golfing holidays — the risks faced by the State in terms of non-compliance vastly outweigh any other risk. How would one decide? One would do so based on the relative weight one gave to the jurisprudence of the issue. Where we differ is that the Minister has decided to accept diplomatic assurances as the response from the United States, whereas so many others, including committee members, feel the weight should have been the other way. If, for example, we had occasional random inspections, we would not have a need for all of this. What makes it in any sense offensive? Would it not have been the right thing to do if we are to continue with the wonderful record we have in prosecuting the extension of human rights internationally and across other conventions? Is this not the right direction because, whether the Minister realises it or not, people whom the Chairman has met, including Ms Louise Arbour and all of these people, were all of the one mind? They were all most anxious to accommodate the Government. None of us is accusing anyone of anything but it is simply an unsatisfactory balance. It is a wrong conclusion from two things that are not equal in balance. Senator Norris is correct about the risks of any country even vaguely or indirectly facilitating this practice by refuelling or any other such assistance. This is a risk to take for which there is no mandate from the Irish people.

Chairman

We are here more than two and a half hours now. I have allowed the debate to continue for some time because Deputy Michael D. Higgins was able to return.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I appreciate it.

Chairman

We have had a very comprehensive discussion. A great deal of material has been given to us. The contributors have been forthright and straight in what has been said. This has been a valuable discussion. The Government has made provision to deal with this matter in the programme for Government and it is a question of how this is implemented. Everybody here is deeply committed to the cause of human rights and the prevention of extraordinary rendition. There is no question about that.

The Government has said it will prioritise effective enforcement of the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention against Torture) Act 2000 and the Geneva Conventions Acts 1962 and 1998. To that end the Government will encourage and support the Garda Síochána in the investigation and enforcement of these statutes. It will do so by making resources available for specialised training, which we understand is already under way, in the provision of those statutes to members of the Garda Síochána and by other means as may be required by the Garda Síochána in order to ensure effective protection for the dignity of all persons within or passing through the State. This is the key issue that has been discussed so much at this meeting.

We will ensure that all relevant legal instruments are used so that the practice of extraordinary rendition does not occur in this State in any form and that Ireland will seek EU and international support to address deficiencies in aspects of the regulation of civil aviation under the Chicago Convention. It will be our duty as a foreign affairs committee and the duty of the witnesses in their respective roles, to pursue these broad principles to try to achieve a workable, practical solution so that we no longer experience the kind of problems that were a feature of our relationship in the past.

Members concerns on the practice of extraordinary rendition have been thoroughly aired. No one can be in any doubt that this committee views any such practice as a grave violation of the human rights of any individual who has been the victim of this form of abduction. I thank Dr. Manning, Ms Egan and Mr. Hogan, for appearing before the committee and for contributing so fully and in such a professional manner. Likewise, I thank Mr. Montgomery, Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Murphy for being most open and giving us clear responses. If we have any further questions we will know with whom to communicate.

On my behalf and on behalf of the joint committee I wish them all a very happy Christmas. We look forward to seeing them again in the new year, please God. This meeting will continue shortly to discuss a motion on cluster munitions. Those in the Gallery who wish to stay for this part of the meeting may do so. I propose to briefly suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow witnesses to leave.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.36. p.m.