speech to the IPPR.
Is this just an idea based on the simplistic notion that because almost everyone else has one then so must we? Will it actually increase the powers of the government and reduce the freedoms of the citizen or will the reverse of that apply? I am not persuaded that we need one. Even if we have one, what should be in it and what should be left out? If we get one, how would it be amended? Who tells us what it means? The USA has one but it hardly stopped the President opening Guantanamo Bay.
I would not entirely rule one out but I need a lot more persuasion of the need for it. Here is another person's view – Of Interest to Some Lawyers – blog.
Addendum 30th March: The views of barrister Carl Gardner may be seen at Head of Legal.