ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY BILL
Conclusion
76. We have had to consider the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Bill at great speed. We are very conscious of the
circumstances which gave birth to it, and the threat that many
citizens of this country still feel to their safety after the
terrible events of 11 September. However, Parliament should take
a long view, and resist the temptation to grant powers to governments
which compromise the rights and liberties of individuals. The
situations which may appear to justify the granting of such powers
are temporary—the loss of freedom is often permanent.
77. The Government has made sincere efforts to safeguard
rights while addressing the threat that it assesses exists to
national security. Indeed, the Home Secretary has been keen to
stress that he has sought the derogation from the ECHR because
he wishes to override a lesser right (to a fair trial) in order
to preserve a greater one (to be free from torture or capital
punishment or inhuman and degrading treatment). All such decisions
involve balancing freedom and security—a balancing act of
which it is difficult to judge the success because Parliament
is not privy to all the information to which Ministers have access.
78. We have concluded that, on the evidence available
to us, the balance between freedom and security in the Bill before
us has not always been struck in the right place. In particular,
although we recognise the dilemma from which the Home Secretary
sought to free himself by recourse to the derogation from Article
5, we are not persuaded that the circumstances of the present
emergency or the exigencies of the current situation meet the
tests set out in Article 15 of the ECHR. It is now for Parliament
to draw its own conclusions, and for Members of both Houses to
satisfy themselves that there are adequate safeguards to protect
the rights of the individual citizen against abuse of these powers
.
79. On the other matters of concern which we have
outlined above, we will be seeking further evidence and giving
them further consideration. We may report to each House again
before the Bill reaches the statute book—in whatever form
it gets there. Careful consideration is not, however, aided by
the decision to push a Bill of this size and complexity through
Parliament at such breakneck speed. Too many ill-conceived measures
litter the statute book as a result of such rushed legislation
in the past.
| 
