---

Binyam Mohamed

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for the first time. I have had a professional relationship with her for a little less than 40 years and I have great respect for her judgment. This is clearly an interim Statement; the saga will continue for some time. I think that we can look forward, not with an enormous amount of enjoyment, to the bits of information about extraordinary rendition that will slip out in one way or another, in Washington, London and elsewhere, over the next two or three years. We on these Benches of course accept the importance of the US/UK intelligence relationship, the crucial element that mutual trust plays in that relationship and the importance of maintaining it. However, this seems an extraordinary circumstance in which the United States, in a hangover from the Bush Administration, appears to have pleaded national security from what I understand, if I have read the report of the judgment correctly—I tried to read through that lengthy document at some speed an hour ago—are just seven paragraphs providing the full details of the alleged torture and relating to the circumstances of Mr Mohamed’s detention and his treatment while he was held. I am quoting the BBC to some extent. That does not seem to me to be central to the national security of the United States or of Britain; it seems to be a matter of political embarrassment to the outgoing Administration. Many of us listened to President Obama’s inauguration speech and heard him say: "““We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals””." This is an area that we need to probe further. It is in the interests of the new US Administration to be as open as possible about the details of the alleged torture and the circumstances in which Mr Mohamed was held. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, I noted with some unease the phrase in the Statement ““possible criminal wrongdoing”” and the issue of UK complicity. I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government will continue to push vigorously to uncover the extent to which we have been engaged. We on these Benches, as the Minister will know, are constantly uneasy about the extent to which Her Majesty’s Government approach relations between the United States and Britain from a perspective of dependence, asking the United States to give us what we want without recognising that we also have considerable assets to offer. Indeed, in the intelligence relationship, GCHQ is of value to the United States, and Menwith Hill is of considerable value. Diego Garcia is also of very considerable value to US defence. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is, of course, more to come out on Diego Garcia. We talk about the importance of maintaining trust and confidentiality. All the information that has come out on Diego Garcia has slipped out to the newspapers in Washington. It has, incidentally, undermined what Ministers have said in this House and another place on the non-use of Diego Garcia for extraordinary rendition. Can the Minister reassure us that, as more of this story continues to slip out, little by little, one way or another, the Government will ensure—as far as possible and within the terms of a continuing mutually assured intelligence relationship with the United States—that we do not compromise the rule of law and our commitment to our ideals?