text: has adopted it as its policy, and a series of bills introduced by private Members in both Houses of Parliament has failed to attract sufficient support to make progress. 7. Reasons against legislation of this kind have been that the broad propositions in the Convention are often unsuited to the close textual analysis of statutes undertaken to determine the will of Parliament; the risk of damaging conflict between the courts on the one hand and the Government and Parliament on the other, with courts being used as a means of challenging unpopular action by the government of the day which has received the support of Parliament; and the view that injustice or unfairness of the kind which such a bill would be designed to correct could in the United Kingdom context be more suitably and more effectively challenged in Parliament. 8. As the Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, QC, then Solicitor-General, said on 6 February 1987 in opposing Sir Edward Gardner's Human Rights Bill, which would have incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights: "The judiciary must be seen to be impartial. More especially, as far as practicable it must be kept free from political controversy. We must take great care not to propel judges into the political arena. However, that is what we would do if we asked them to take policy decisions of a nature that we [Parliament] ought properly to take ourselves and which under our present constitution we do take. We would increase that danger if we required or permitted them to alter or even reverse decisions taken by Parliament .... Our constitutional history rather strongly shows that over the centuries the British people have preferred that these matters should be decided by people whom they can 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the relationship between the judiciary and the government in the context of human rights, specifically the potential risks and challenges of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The language used suggests a focus on the role of the courts and Parliament in upholding human rights, rather than any specific economic, environmental, or scientific issue.