Civil liberties policy: more liberal than conservative?

A few days on from the tumultuous events of last week and the UK is settling down to coalition government. Details of specific policies have yet to emerge, but the signs are hopeful as regards human rights and civil liberties.

It was plain that repeal of the Human Rights Act would be a deal-breaker for any Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition and so we have seen no mention of the Conservative Party’s manifesto pledge to replace it. At point ten of the document summarising the deal between the parties, the new government commits itself to passing: 'A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill'. This policy has Liberal Democrat fingerprints all over it as the party was touting a draft Freedom Bill at its last conference. It seems that many of Labour's measures which are perceived as anti-civil liberties are to be trashed. Out will go ID cards, the National Identity register and biometric passports. Also included is the reform of the libel laws and the Freedom of Information Act, the restoration of rights to non-violent protest and greater protections for the DNA database.

Perhaps part of the reason for the Conservative swing towards a more liberal civil liberties agenda is to save cash. Both parties claim savings can be made by scrapping the ID cards scheme - described as a 'laminated poll tax' by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats also claimed in their manifesto that £795 million could be saved by cancelling the prison-building programme and replacing prison sentences of less than six months with community sentences. Such measures play well with those close to penal policy who know prison is hopeless at rehabilitation. LAG believes an opportunity exists to take on the mistaken policy assumption that 'prison works' and go for real reform.

There is much sense in what is proposed by the new government and there are some opportunities for reform, but such measures will need to be passed quickly while goodwill for the new government exists and discipline on the Conservative backbenches remains firm.

Photograph: Legal Action Group

A bill of rights election

Last week saw the opening shots of what is likely to be a four-month general election campaign, assuming Gordon Brown goes for the predicted 6 May polling day. The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 will feature in this campaign as Conservative leader David Cameron has pledged to repeal it and replace it with a 'British Bill of Rights'. It is unclear, though, what he means by this.

The promised bill of rights could be a codification of existing rights which can be portrayed as being British in character, such as habeas corpus and trial by jury, as well as the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention) enshrined in the HRA. This would be welcome as better defining the rights that British or UK citizens enjoy (a 'United Kingdom Bill of Rights' would seem a much better title as it would fit the devolved constitutional settlement in Scotland and and Northern Ireland). It could also be seen as an opportunity to engage the public in a discussion on what they want from a bill of rights, hopefully allaying some of the misconceptions that seem to abound about the HRA.

However, in the worst-case scenario, the Conservatives, if elected, would repeal the HRA and turn the legislative clock back to 1998. Their bill of rights could be no more than legislative smoke and mirrors to provide the cover to rescind the rights enshrined in the HRA, forcing people to enforce their convention rights in the European Court of Human Rights instead of the UK courts.

In LAG's view, the rights covered in the HRA are fundamental to a civilised society and their impact should not be diluted by any replacement legislation. The Conservatives do say that they support the convention. It is important in the coming weeks that they make clear their intentions regarding the bill of rights and the HRA as the current position is ambiguous.

LAG would also urge all the political parties to come to a consensus on what should be included in a bill of rights. Labour, unfortunately, has failed so far to build a consensus around the HRA. There were some useful discussions between the parties initiated by the publication last year of a government green paper suggesting a 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' which should be built on. Such an important constitutional bill needs to be above party politics or we risk each new government tinkering with what should be seen as our nation's constitutional bedrock.