The proposal has left many lawyers aghast and Dominic Grieve, who was a barrister before entering politics warned the consequences for Britain's reputation in the wider world would be "very considerable" if it were to abolish the act.
He also insisted there is no "quick fix" because the act is "well embedded" in the constitutional settlements that underpin devolution, making it difficult to do anything against the wishes of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.
Open Image Modal
Dominic Grieve when he was attorney general
He told Sky News: "Is it merely a cosmetic change or is it a desire to do something radically different?"
"The latter would pose problems in relation to Britain's relationship with the Council of Europe, he said, as well as the European Union, which requires its member states to adhere to the convention.
Other than that, he insisted, the question was "totally unconnected" to the EU referendum, calling the discussion of the Bill of Rights - promised in the Conservative manifesto - "a bit of a distraction".
He also stressed the Supreme Court is "already supreme" and suggested the government was promising something that already exists.
While he said he understands the need to clarify the situation, he added: "It's not at all clear as to what we are trying to achieve.
"At the end of the day, what are the benefits going to be compared to the costs of change?"
He also pointed out that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would not make it easier to remove people from the UK because the problems in doing so are often down to other countries refusing to take them or denying they are the nation of origin.
He said it is often the international Convention against Torture which prevents individuals being returned.
Former shadow home secretary and fellow Tory David Davis has hinted he might rebel in any vote on abolishing the Human Rights Act.
He told The Hull Daily Mail: "I'm afraid we will come into conflict with the European court and I don't want us to leave it.
"If we leave, it's an excuse for everyone else to leave. So I think that could be quite an interesting argument, come the day.
"I think it is more likely there will be an argument over that than over Europe."
Lord Falconer, the new Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, said: “The Conservatives and their new Secretary of State for Justice appear all over the place on human rights.
“The UK Government should not be sending the message that it is undecided on whether it continues to support human rights and their incorporation into UK domestic law.
"Labour unequivocally supports Human Rights and their incorporation into UK domestic law. We will resist any attempts to dilute the commitment to human rights.”
10 Worrying Things About The Tories' Human Rights Proposals
The proposals says that the ECHR banned whole-life tariffs for prisoners, but they didn't(01 of10)
Open Image Modal
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, called it a "howler" based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Strasbourg ruling, and that UK sentencing laws had been found to be "totally compatible". Adam Wagner, human rights barrister from 1 Crown Office Row, called it a "major factual error". (credit:Fiona Hanson/PA Archive)
It's very unlikely the UK could be granted special status to have the Strasbourg court as a mere 'advisory' body(02 of10)
Open Image Modal
In practice, these proposals pretty much mean leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, lawyers say, leaving us in the company of Belarus and Kazakhstan. Russia, Azerbaijahn and Ukraine are just some of the countries that would have more watertight human rights protection than the UK. (credit:Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
If we want special treatment from the ECHR, then won't other countries want it too?(03 of10)
Open Image Modal
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg points out that "if Westminster has a veto on Strasbourg’s decisions, the parliaments of Russia, Ukraine and other countries will want one too, making compliance with court rulings voluntary would undermine the entire convention system." (credit:ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The proposals "limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases...ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases."(04 of10)
One of the proposals actually means we are more tightly legally bound to the Strasbourg court than we are already(05 of10)
Open Image Modal
The document says "every judgement that UK law is incompatible with the Convention will be treated as advisory and we will introduce a new Parliamentary procedure to formally consider the judgement. It will only be binding in UK law if Parliament agrees that it should be enacted as such." Carl Gardner points out in his Head of Legal blog that "this proposal puts more human rights obligations on Parliament than it has under the Human Rights Act. There is currently no legal duty on Parliament to consider any Strasbourg judgment. The Conservatives plan would oblige it to for the very first time." (credit:Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Grayling has forgotten to mention how this would work under the Good Friday agreement with Northern Ireland or with Scottish devolution(06 of10)
Open Image Modal
It is a requirement under the Good Friday agreement that ultimately people in NI can take cases to the ECHR. Chris Grayling has just written a paper which makes no reference to this issue or how it can be solved, except saying 'We will work with the devolved administrations and legislatures as necessary to make sure there is an effective new settlement across the UK'. Westminster could change the law for both countries, but there's been no consultation and no reference to it in this paper, and it's likely Scotland would seek to devolve it. If Scotland or NI want to stay linked to the ECHR, then we could end up with a "patchwork" of different human rights laws across the United Kingdom. (credit:Dorling Kindersley via Getty Images)
British judges are now likely to find more UK legislation is incompatible with human rights, not fewer(07 of10)
Open Image Modal
The new proposals say the Tories will "prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’ of Strasborg case law." "I don’t think this has been thought through," Gardner writes on Head of Legal. "If judges think old housing legislation discriminates against a gay tenant, they can rule that it is no longer to be read as permitting the discrimination. "But if that option is barred, they will in case like that have no option but to declare the legislation incompatible with human rights in principle. The result, surely, will be more headlines about judges condemning Parliament for breaching human rights, not fewer." (credit:Lewis Whyld/PA Archive)
The proposals mean we don't have to worry as much about sending people off to be tortured(08 of10)
Open Image Modal
The “real risk” test used to determine whether someone is at risk of torture on deportation will be "revised..in line with our commitment to prevent torture and in keeping with the approach taken by other developed nations”. "If there is evidence that an individual faces a real risk of torture on return, should the UK seriously be seeking shortcuts?" asks Angela Patrick is the Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE. (credit:Cristian Baitg via Getty Images)
It would take an enormous amount of time, effort and consultation to end up with basically the same thing we have already(09 of10)
Open Image Modal
No one thinks we should scrap laws against, say, slavery, or free speech, or the right to protest. So the new "Bill of Rights" would be 99% a carbon copy of what we already have, only enforced by British judges, several legal commentators have pointed out. Unless we scrap human rights altogether. (credit:Peter Macdiarmid via Getty Images)
The proposal doesn't even spell "judgment" in the correct legal way(10 of10)
Open Image Modal
Gardner points out that this means the proposal probably wasn't drafted by lawyers, at least in parts.
A good point from @carlgardner - the (non-legal) spelling of "judgement" for "judgment" is a tell - Tory document not drafted by a lawyer.