The Barrister Bard

Too much has already been ventilated, by word and mouth, on the Human Rights Act, with proponents and opponents entrenched in their respective corners and never destined to meet half way.

In previous articles, I have advocated its repeal, and will continue to do so, despite the recent speech of Lord Phillips, the President of the newly created Supreme Court.  He argues for its retention, but he fails to persuade me.

There are essentially three issues regarding the Act.  Firstly, do we need a Human Rights Act at all?  Only if it can be demonstrated that the human rights of the subject were not satisfactorily protected before the Act can a compelling case be made for its retention.  Our human rights before the Act were not statute based, but had evolved over centuries by the sensible application of common sense and fairness.

Secondly, and Lord Phillips would have to accept, its implementation, especially by the High Court, has led to some curious and contradictory judgments which fall far short of a ‘golden thread’ running through our judicial system.

And finally, the Act derogates powers from our domestic law to Europe, and in particular to Strasbourg.  To many, the idea that Johnnie Foreigner knows more about our human rights than we do is anathema to many, and sadly, Europe has a poor track record.

I have recently been enjoined by the new coalition government to participate in the ‘Big Society’, and I am now getting emails from David Cameron and, most recently, from Baroness Warsi.  With this in mind, and doing my bit for the economy, I recommend the abolition of the nanny state ‘no smoking’ legislation, which forbids smoking in any public place.

I concede that this ban has reduced by a small margin the number of people who actually smoke, and some modest savings have been identified by the NHS.  But consider the facts.  Smoking, as with the consumption of alcohol, is not illegal.  Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars, are heavily taxed, and this generates substantial income for the Treasury.  The latest annual figures show the total amount raised is in the sum of £10 billion, not to be sneezed at.

But it goes farther than this.  Figures suggest that as many as 300 pubs and restaurants are closing every week, the more so in rural locations, where drink drive legislation has hit the hardest.  Many customers of these establishments are prepared to moderate their drinking, but to be denied a cigarette with their favourite tipple is a bridge too far.  The suggestion that smokers should stand outside in all weathers if they want to smoke is unappealing, and in the result, they are staying home.

Pubs and restaurants also make a sizeable contribution to the national coffers, as do all successful businesses.  They are also good employers of cooks, waiters, receptionists, front of house, cleaners and the like, and all this is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Of course there are those who go to a pub or restaurant, who don’t smoke, and don’t want to be in the same room as smokers.  No doubt the owners of these establishments appreciate this, and if not, they don’t deserve to stay in business.  Surely they can be trusted to find the right combination to please all their patrons.

So my advice to David Cameron and George Osborne is to ditch the nanny state, and like human rights, to leave it to common sense and fairness.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 14th, 2010 at 9:19 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.