Roger Smith (London, JUSTICE): 2008 marks a decade since the Human Rights Act was passed, in those first carefree days of the Blair administration. Its anniversary will be marked by a politically charged row over the number of days that alleged terrorists can be detained before charge; a heavyweight battle over whether the Act should morph into a Bill of Rights; and the so far unanswered question of what difference the newly created Equalities and Human Rights Commission will make.
Labour ministers have reacted with something close to incomprehension at the impact of the Human Rights Act. They apparently failed to appreciate that their own legislation might just have some real consequences. Thus, we have had pretty well continuous sound and fury since 9/11 as the impact of international terrorism tested the liberal credentials of successive Home Secretaries. As far as David Blunkett and John Reid were concerned, they went well past breaking point. Charles Clarke was pretty near the line. The Human Rights Act has been short of high-level support, so Jack Straw's return to ministerial responsibility for the legislation that he personally took through Parliament, has given it a much-needed protection within government.
This year's set-piece civil liberties battle will, once again, reduce itself to a number - the number of days in detention pre-charge. There must be some doubt if the European Court of Human Rights would support the current 28. The Government is starting off with a demand for 42. This would make 35 the obvious compromise, except that Gordon Brown must be somewhat embarrassed by the resounding lack of heavyweight support. While he cannot persuade his own Director of Public Prosecutions on the merits of extension, there must remain a reasonable chance that this ill-conceived, badly evidenced and largely symbolic measure will fail.
The current state of near permanent pre-election hysteria will, no doubt, be maintained by the proposal for a Bill of Rights. All three major political parties profess that they want one. One of the interesting subplots of the year will be how David Cameron manages to extricate himself from the politically attractive but legally incoherent position of giving people more rights (e.g. jury trial), ditto the state (e.g. chucking foreigners back where they come from), staying within the European Convention of Human Rights and justifying hyperbolic comparison with one of the great constitutional documents of our history. Jack Straw will have a slightly easier time with his view of a Bill of Rights. Indeed, one of the most boring subplots might well be how a noble proposal gets swamped with the fuzzy vague language of citizenship, values and responsibilities. It could just sink.
Finally, this is the year when we will see if Trevor Phillips' commission makes any difference to the human rights world. Will yoking together equalities and human rights give each a new momentum? Will the commission be able to improve public services through a greater commitment to the rights of recipients? Will the commission be able to win more public support for human rights? Don't hold your breath.
