I NOTE with interest the Agenda contribution from Professor Aileen McHarg's ("Tory plans could open the door to a stronger human rights regime", The Herald, May 15) as the comments of W Hunter Watson's (Letters, May 15).

Both make important points.

If a Bill of Rights matches the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, something may be preserved. This cannot be assumed. The Conservative proposals go well beyond this. They set out not only to repeal the Human Rights Act, but also render the Court of Human Rights judgments unenforceable in the UK, and they require courts to read legislation as compatible with human rights. There are also proposals to limit the use of human rights law to the most "serious cases", with yet no definition of such cases. One suspects that unpopular groups may end up being excluded.

This is not idle speculation. It happened before: when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was changed back in 2012, the rights of foreigners were sharply reduced (with remarkable tact, just avoiding the London Olympics).

While the current debate is dominated by a small number of headline cases, it is worthwhile remembering that the benefits of the Human Rights Act has been brought to virtually every area of life.

"Police station law" and the rights of accused persons to have a solicitor present when they are being interviewed have been transormed. This was as a result of a Supreme Court decision.

There has been a comprehensive reform of the procedures for the detention and compulsory treatment for people suffering from mental health problems. This reform is positively steeped in principles developed from a strong Human Rights culture.

We have had a developing legal supervision of unlawful restrictions in the freedom of older people.

There has been some Legal Aid provision for employment tribunals and some Children's Hearing matters, of particularly use for very vulnerable people.

We have seen a vigorous development of the importance of court scrutiny of decisions to evict tenants: even in cases where a local authority may hold draconian power over a vulnerable family. This has gone along with the development of an entirely new post Human Rights Act defence for homeowners in mortgage arrears who would otherwise lose their homes.

There has also been an ongoing transformation of the way policy makers and, to some extent, the law treats victims of crimes of violence: both in the context of the court process, historic crimes as well as generally the accountability of the police and prosecution authorities.

The "sharp end" of the development of human rights law focuses on people who have little opportunity to influence the democratic system: for instance, prisoners, asylum seekers, people with severe mental illnesses or who are severely excluded. However the vigorous development of human rights remedies has not only helped them but, as can be seen from the small number of examples above, us all.

State power affects us all. The Human Rights Act is a key way that power is balanced, made accountable and capable of review by the courts.

Paul Brown,

CEO, Legal Services Agency,

Fleming House,

134 Renfrew Street , Glasgow.