There is little point in repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act (whether it is replaced with something else or not) unless Britain also withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights on which it was based.
One thing the 1998 Act did was to make it slightly easier for litigants to persue their causes as they could be handled in British courts instead of having to be remitted to Strasbourg. Unfortunately, alongside this somewhat dubious benefit came a large number of drawbacks. Not the least of these is the fact that the 1998 Act is often used in attempts to circumvent British laws which are applied for the benefit of the majority of the population and which have stood the test of time.
The Convention (and hence the Act) are deliberately vague and almost every case raised under its auspices involve an undue amount of interpretation by judges. Furthermore, the perception is that the Act only benefits criminals, terrorists and foreigners. There seems to be some truth in this. When was the last time you read (even in the Guardian) of a ruling being made or action being taken in the name of the Act in favour of a law-abiding British person?
The British constitution and laws are perfectly able to cope with abuses of power by the Government. I don�t recall too many people being held without trial, or tortured or having their right to privacy violated before 1998. In fact there have been more examples since then. I also, though, don�t recall �travellers� attempting to drive a coach and horses (and their caravans) through planning law, or prisoners taking the governor to court in an attempt to exercise their right to be provided with razor blades and pornography.
Far from ensuring that justice is done, it very often impedes that process with its unbalanced emphasis on Rights for wrongdoers.