A House of Lords European Union Select Committee has been looking at the UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights. Its report was published yesterday. It is long; it runs to nine chapters and two appendices.
While I’ve understandably not read it all, I have read their Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations. Their Lordships aren’t impressed. Here are what were for me the stand-out points from their 30 paragraph conclusions.

The proposals the Secretary of State outlined did not appear to depart significantly from the Human Rights Act — we note in particular that all the rights contained within the ECHR are likely to be affirmed in any British Bill of Rights. His evidence left us unsure why a British Bill of Rights was really necessary.
If a Bill of Rights is not intended to change significantly the protection of human rights in the UK, we recommend the Government give careful thought before proceeding with this policy.
We call on the Government to explain its grounds for concluding that … the UK public sees human rights as a “foreign intervention”, and how a Bill of Rights would address this concern any more than the Human Rights Act does.
[T]he weight of evidence we received does not support a conclusion that the Court of Justice has sought to expand the reach of EU law over Member States through its judgements on the scope of the EU Charter.
The weight of evidence demonstrates that, were a Bill of Rights to restrict victims’ rights to bring legal challenges under the Human Rights Act, more challenges under the EU Charter in domestic courts would be likely. This, in turn, is likely to give rise to more references from UK courts to the Court of Justice …
The common law would be unlikely to fill the gaps in human rights protection were the Human Rights Act to be replaced by legislation providing a lower level of protection.
The model of the German Federal Constitutional Court, advocated by the Secretary of State … appears ill-suited to the UK’s constitutional context … We question whether this is a model the UK, with its constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, would want to follow.
We heard concerns that a British Bill of Rights that reduced the UK’s explicit commitment to the ECHR would undermine the UK’s standing …
We call on the Government to state explicitly whether or not it intends that the UK should remain a signatory to the ECHR.
Human rights are entrenched in the devolution settlements of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a way that they are not under the UK’s constitution …
The evidence we received from the Scottish and Welsh Governments demonstrates strong support for the role of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter to be preserved … the vital role being played by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act in implementing the Good Friday Agreement.
The evidence demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly are unlikely to give consent to a Bill of Rights which repealed the Human Rights Act … Were the UK Government to proceed without such consent, it would be entering into uncharted constitutional territory.

And the final turn of the knife between the ribs …

The difficulties the Government faces in implementing a British Bill of Rights in the devolved nations are substantial. Given the seemingly limited aims of the proposed Bill of Rights, the Government should give careful consideration to whether, in the words of the Secretary of State, it means unravelling “the constitutional knitting for very little”. If for no other reason, the possible constitutional disruption involving the devolved administrations should weigh against proceeding with this reform.

Out of the 30 paragraphs of conclusions, I think I spotted just one which could suggest that the proposed Bill of Rights might be a good thing.
That’s a pretty damning condemnation in my book. But then when did governments ever take much notice of Parliamentary Select Committees?