Here is a transcript of the key part:

"The case for remaining a signatory of the European convention on human rights, which means Britain is subject to the European court of human rights, is not clear. Because, despite what people sometimes think, it was not the European Union that delayed for years the extradition of Abu Hamza, almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada and tried to tell parliament that however we voted, we could not deprive prisoners of the vote. It is the European convention on human rights.

The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So, regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave, but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.

Now, I can already hear certain people saying, Ah, this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950 when the convention was drafted, or in 1998 when the convention was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain, the country of Magna Carta, parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world. And we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of parliament. A true British bill of rights, decided by parliament and amended by parliament, would protect not only the rights set out in the convention, but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR such as the right to trial by jury."