The statement by Kenneth Clarke (Secretary of State for Justice) may be seen here - Parliament - Guantanamo civil litigation settlement statement. Mr Clarke emphasized that the government does not condone torture and does not ask others to do it on our behalf. The settlement was achieved by mediation and is subject to a legally binding confidentiality agreement. The alternative to this would have been protracted and extremely expensive litigation and, so it was argued, would have been damaging to Britain's security interests if various matters were revealed in court.
In July 2010, the Prime Minister announced an inquiry under the Chairmanship of retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Peter Gibson - see here. At the time, there was a view that someone else should have been appointed as Chairman given that Sir Peter is the Intelligence Services Commissioner and might therefore be seen as, to an extent, too close to the intelligence services. It is said that the inquiry cannot commence its work until the Metropolitan Police reach a decision relating to possible criminal charges against an MI5 officer and an MI6 officer.** (see Note below)
Then there is the on-going inquest into deaths arising from the 7th July Bombings in London. The Acting Coroner (Lady Justice Hallett) ruled that MI5 officers could not give evidence in secret - see BBC 3rd November. The Home Secretary announced that a judicial review of that decision would be sought - see BBC 9th November.
Finally, Amnesty International has issued a report which criticises European institutions for failing to hold countries such as the UK to account for alleged involvement in rendition and secret detention - see "Open Secret: Mounting evidence of Europe's complicity in rendition and secret detention."
For the near future, it seems unlikely that a line can truly be drawn under any of these important issues even if the government has reached an expensive (and controversial) settlement in the Al Rawi case.
** Note: Late on 17th November it was announced that there is "insufficient evidence" to proceed against an MI5 officer - see The Guardian. The statement from the CPS is very brief.