Those hoping for a major change of direction on human rights by the new government will have answers soon. As we discovered with Labour, the strongest measures a government takes on the protection of human rights are likely to be those it takes in its first few weeks, so what is in the first Queen's Speech is very important. Five areas may be critical.
First, an area where the government should do nothing: the Human Rights Act. This was one of the last government's best, and first, achievements and it quietly transformed the British legal and governmental approach to the protection of human rights. The Conservatives' plan to scrap the act was a regressive proposal. But the Liberal Democrats' opposition to its abolition suggests that this policy will be a welcome casualty of coalition.
Second, both parties are committed to rolling back years of legislation that has undermined basic right after basic right, especially in the criminal justice system. The coalition agreement commits the government to a "freedom bill" (to use the Liberal Democrats' term) or "great repeal bill" (to use the Conservatives' term) on civil liberties. But the agreement does not say what will be in it. The critical issue will be whether this happens quickly - in the Queen's Speech - and if it is as wide ranging as it sounds. Given the amount of Labour legislation one or both of the new governing parties opposed, it should not be that difficult to come up with a long list of laws to repeal and rights to restore.
Indeed the Liberal Democrats have already done so in their draft freedom bill, which would scrap the discredited system of "control orders", used against those who are not even to be tried with a crime. Abolishing these orders would be a relatively easy step for the new government. The Liberal Democrats said they would even repair some of the damage done by the last Conservative government by restoring the right to silence to those arrested, although one wonders if their new partners were planning to go that far.
On one critical issue ministers need, again, simply to do nothing. If they do not renew the relevant order in July, the period of detention without charge, extended massively under the last government and now at 28 days, will go back to 14 days. It would be a worrying sign indeed if the government of two parties which, in opposition, inflicted major defeats on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown on this issue actively renewed this 28-day policy.
Third, the new government must address the legacy of the last government's involvement in torture around the world. Human Rights Watch, the Guardian and others have uncovered the extent to which British intelligence agents, apparently acting under orders, engaged abroad in what even a parliamentary committee has called complicity in torture by assisting in the detention and questioning of persons who were tortured in Pakistan and elsewhere. Many, including the Liberal Democrats, have called for a judicial inquiry into this - but the issue is not mentioned anywhere in the coalition agreement. The time for such an inquiry is now, and it should be comprehensive, swift and public to find out exactly what happened and ensure it does not happen again.
Evidence has also been emerging of torture, deaths and other abuse that took place at British-run detention centres during the occupation of Iraq. Again the new ministers, who do not bear responsibility for these practices, will need to ensure a full and public investigation leading to the accountability of those implicated. But ministers need to take action quickly on two other torture policies of the last government that still continue, to avoid their own implication. The continued use by British authorities of information likely to have been obtained under torture at the very least constitutes connivance in the use of that torture. The last government also tried to push the use of "diplomatic assurances" in the deportation of persons to countries where they were at real risk of torture, claiming that these paper guarantees from governments that they would not torture those persons will remove any risk, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. The new government can and should end both policies in the coming days.
Fourth, the government should restore Britain's role as a champion of international justice. The Labour government began by significantly increasing Britain's support for the new International Criminal Court, whose first trials are under way. But it ended its time in office attempting to find ways to limit the independence of the courts to issue arrest warrants against suspected international criminals on British soil. The new government should announce that it will fully support the identification, investigation and prosecution of those wanted for the world's worst international crimes, especially if they are in Britain.
The fight for international justice and against torture could be helped by one major reform, completing the last decade's modernisation of justice: the government should finally remove its own ministers from involvement in individual cases, specifically by ending the attorney general's power to approve or suspend prosecutions, a power that has been used to stop politically inconvenient cases. Removing this power and allowing the police and Crown Prosecution Service to go after those responsible for the worst crimes such as torture, without interference, would begin the process of holding international criminals in Britain accountable. The new attorney general, Dominic Grieve, should announce that limitation on his powers immediately.
Experience shows that a taste for human rights acquired in opposition can soon wear off in government. Once comfortable behind their desks, new ministers tend soon to find the very repressive and authoritarian measures they decried in opposition rather congenial and useful once they sit in government. Let's hope that the novelty of coalition government can buck that trend.
