Where did this idea come from?
Both Conservatives and Labour recognise that the Human Rights Act incorporating the 60-year-old European Convention on Human Rights in British law has been unpopular, with claims that it leads a compensation culture, and puts too much emphasis on the rights of criminals, as opposed to the rights of victims. Some argue a native bill of rights would be organically rooted in the UK's constitutional traditions. David Cameron was the first to advocate this course in 2006, and Gordon Brown came up with his own proposal in 2007.
What is the point if it is not legally enforceable?
Constitutional lawyers argue that declaratory statements have a value in that they can be collective expression of a shared commitment. They can also by virtue of being an act of parliament be open to interpretation by the courts without supplanting the role of parliament in setting economic priorities. It might also give greater prominence to new post-war rights of social justice and the welfare state, victims' rights, equality and administration.
Why add responsibilities?
Thinkers including Aristotle, Mill and Paine have argued that rights need to be accompanied by duty or responsibility.
Does the cabinet support it?
The proposal received short shrift three months ago, from cabinet members worried that it would represent a field day for lawyers and do nothing to make the Human Rights Act more popular. Critics feared that it would be seen as an irrelevance at a time of economic recession. Defenders argued that a bill could entrench the progressive consensus at a time it is under attack, so providing security at a time of anxiety.
Do the Conservatives support it?
The Conservatives are badly split on how they intend to replace or supplement the Human Rights Act, and yesterday confined themselves to attacking the Labour charade for not setting out clearly how rights might be enforceable.