ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Well now on Friday you’ll remember Britain’s last resident to be held at Guantanamo Bay, Shaker Aamer was first held by the United States in Afghanistan way back in 2001 where he maintains he was doing charity work.  He was held without charge for 13 years and one of those lobbying for Mr Aamer’s release was the former International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, who joins me now.  A very good morning to you Mr Mitchell.  He’s been released, finally, what should flow from it now in terms of investigations and finding out what happened to him and who did it?

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well the first thing to do is to sort out his health and get him back to his family so that he can meet for the first time and hold his 13 year old son but after that I think we need him to look the cameras in the eye and say exactly what happened to him.  This is a pretty shameful episode in the history of justice and human rights and we need to learn the lessons to ensure it doesn’t happen to anyone else but above all if, as is alleged, there was British complicity in what happened to him, possibly in torture, then we need to know about that and to hold to account any British official who was involved in any way.

DM: But does this need a formal setting?  You say look into the cameras, that’s a news conference presumably or an interview, does it need a formal setting, do we need a formal investigation and in particular about those worrying aspects – and there are allegations of being tortured himself and of being witness to abuse – and this question of whether Britain or British agents were present to witness any of that?

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well I think the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons, which is not a parliamentary committee, it’s the Prime Minister’s committee but I think that is the right vehicle for such an inquiry and I think that the new chairman, Dominic Grieve, an extremely distinguished former Attorney General, is the right person to lead that inquiry and I hope that that will give us the answers to these important and legitimate questions which now need to get a response.   

DM: Just lay out for us why it matters.  There are some people who say, and I’ve been reading it myself on social media, saying not so very long ago a British national was killed by a drone in Syria.  He went there of his own volition, it was unclear what he was actually doing, the Prime Minister announced that in the House of Commons.  If Shaker Aamer had been killed all those years ago during the messy conflict in Afghanistan, no one would be asking any questions.

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well I think the Prime Minister was right to take the action that he took in that case to address an imminent threat to British citizens…

DM: But do we really know there was an imminent threat?  Were human rights fully obeyed there, was he given a chance to justice, was anyone able to arrest him?  We don’t know.  

ANDREW MITCHELL: That is why after any such executive action like that is taken, a full investigation of the facts which led the Minister or the Prime Minister to make it and again it is for the Intelligence and Security Committee I think in this instance to have a look at that and they have said that they will do so.  These drone attacks rightly should make us feel queasy but the Prime Minister has a heavy responsibility on these occasions to protect us all and I think that in this case he has been very willing that there should be some investigation afterwards into the reasons why he made that decision and that’s the right thing to do.

DM: But Shaker Aamer, as I say, there are potential parallels.  He could have been killed all those years ago and no one would be asking any questions about whether he was there to do charity work or not.

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well I think the important point about Shaker is that his human rights have been abused.  He did not receive justice, he was cleared by a Republican President in 2007, President Bush and again for release in 2009 by a Democrat President, President Obama and he was held without charge for 14 years, that is longer than many people serve for murder in this country.  We are better than this, we cannot allow in the fight against terrorism which is a serious generational issue, to sink below the high standards which we should always maintain and to do so helps to enthuse those who are our enemies.  Guantanamo I am afraid has been a very good recruiting sergeant for the terrorists because it is a flagrant breach of people’s human rights and a flagrant breach of the system of justice.  

DM: What we’re discussing has a bearing doesn’t it on the Investigatory Powers Bill which the House of Commons is going to have an initial look at very soon.  Do you get the sense now having listened to the Home Secretary this morning that there are sufficient safeguards now being put in there to make sure that the line is not crossed, as we have been discussing, into interfering with civil liberties?

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well there is a lot of spinning going on at the moment and I think what we need to do, what Members of Parliament need to do, regardless of party, is to look very carefully at the words on the face of the Bill, what is the actual change in the law going to mean for our liberties?  I start with the principle that the state is the servant of the people and not the other way round and for any erosion of our liberties, and it is clear that some of the most egregious suggestions have been removed from the Bill, for any erosion of our liberties we need to have a good strong look at what is being suggested and we need to avoid the suggestion that the state is some God-like entity which sees everything and understands everything and always gets it right.  The state is not, the state is composed of people like you and me with our prejudices and our preconceptions and our views, it is not a God-like entity and we need to make certain that we protect ourselves from any suggestion that it is.  Mistakes are made and in Shaker Aamer we see a very clear example of a mistake being made.

DM: It’s interesting what you touched on there about a lot of spinning taking place, we had the Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, in a little bit earlier and she was saying just exactly the same thing.  There was a major article, a major series of articles in the Times during the course of last week about GCHQ, do you detect the hand of the security services trying to get its retaliation in first so to speak?

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well I think that the GCHQ co-operation is clearly designed to inform this debate and it does qualify as spinning but both sides are spinning, that’s why it’s incumbent on Members of Parliament to look very carefully at the precise wording of the Bill and decide whether it enhances our safety and security and whether any trade off with our civil liberties is justified and that’s the job of Members of Parliament, to look for themselves and make that judgement on behalf of their constituents.  

DM: It seems to be a theme to our discussion, I just want to throw in the end of this because the Liberal Democrats are saying that this very Bill may have to be dealt with from its point of view, given its lack of power within the House of Commons, within the House of Lords yet again.  We all see what happened to tax credits, do you feel if it comes to it it should be the job of the House of Lords to correct what it seems as the House of Commons getting it wrong?

ANDREW MITCHELL: Well it is the job of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to look carefully at this legislation but if the House of Commons agrees to it or seeks changes, I would expect the House of Lords to back the view of the House of Commons and not go out on a limb on what is a very serious matter of national security.

DM: Okay, Andrew Mitchell, very good to talk to you, thank you very much indeed.