Scrapping the 1998 Human Rights Act introduced by Labour does not mean that British courts would no longer have to apply the European convention on human rights.

British citizens would still be able to take cases to the European court of human rights, and its case law and the principles of the convention would still be in force in UK courts.

Britons who want to bring cases would, however, no longer be able to have them heard by a high court first. Instead, they would face delays and extra costs in taking cases directly to Strasbourg. Before the 1998 Act “brought rights home”, it took an average of five years at a cost of £30,000 to go to Strasbourg.

But what about a British bill of rights? If a British version were to be introduced to replace the Human Rights Act, it could restore the right of domestic courts to hear cases in this legal milieu without the need to go directly to Strasbourg.

Some Labour politicians argue that if all it means is putting a British badge on the Human Rights Act, then they are fairly relaxed about the development.

But it will depend on how the British bill of rights is written. If it is regarded as an opportunity to remove some human rights and becomes “HRA minus”, then the challenge for its supporters would be to state what rights they wish to take away from British citizens.

Apart from questions such as the right of certain prisoners to vote, they have so far proved reluctant to specify them. Some human rights campaigners take a positive approach to a British bill of rights, claiming it is an opportunity to extend the HRA to include a right to healthcare or education.