Whether it remains his Department's policy to progress the Bill of Rights Bill. The Human Rights Act 1998 protects us from abuses of power, but the Bill proposes scrapping it, weakening human rights protections in UK law and making it harder for people to hold the Government and other public bodies to account.

If the Minister will not answer my question about the Bill's future, can he at least commit to keeping the Human Rights Act on the statute book?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it may apply in this case. If changes to the human rights regime are thought necessary, perhaps Sir Peter Gross's report offers a better way forward. Do his Department's important priorities include ensuring fully efficient and working court systems and an efficient and humane prison system? Meeting the Bar Council and the Law Society to iron out remaining matters from the Bellamy review may be higher priorities.

Positive obligations are a cornerstone of the Human Rights Act 1998. They mean the state must protect as well as refrain from restricting our rights. Victims of the black cab rapist used these obligations to hold police accountable for failing to investigate over 105 alleged rapes and sexual assaults by him. How can this Government be trusted on ending violence against women and girls when previous attempts were made to rip up that Act? Will he commit himself to protecting them and their rights?

If he wants to be seen as a Justice Secretary who will stand up for the rule of law and access to justice, he should put greatest possible distance between him and predecessor's pet project. Will he disown the Bill of Rights altogether? Instead of undermining respect for international rights, why not incorporate more domestic rights into law?