Article For Folkestone Herald

25 November 2004

The extent to which Governments are entitled to interfere with the activities of the citizens they represent will always be a matter of great controversy.

The boundaries within which people should be free to live their own lives as they see fit are a crucial element in the makeup of every free society.

Of course there are circumstances in which Government intervention is justified. I am not in favour of the legalisation of drugs. But there does have to be a very clear case before Governments pass laws before they tell people what they can and cannot do.

Last week the Government imposed one ban and proposed two others. I do not think any of them are justified.

The ban they imposed was the ban on hunting. My position has always been that if it could be demonstrated that the fox could be effectively controlled by other means that would be less harmful than hunting, those arguments would have to be considered. But Government report after Government report has concluded that there are no other ways of dealing with the fox population which are less harmful to the fox than hunting. In those circumstances a ban cannot be justified. That is why I opposed it. The true reasons for the ban were exposed by the Labour MP, a Parliamentary aide to the Minister responsible for the ban, who confessed that the true reason for the ban was class hatred. This is a disgraceful approach to Government and to legislation. It tells you all you need to know about the real character of the Government we have.

Nor do I believe that there is a strong enough case for the Government proposal to ban smoking in most public places. There is a growing demand for smoke free public houses and the market is ensuring that more and more public houses cater for those who wish to take advantage of this. But if others want to continue to enjoy a smoke and a pint I see no reason why they should not do so.

Even the argument about passive smoking is far from conclusive. If people are not allowed to smoke in pubs they may well smoke more at home – perhaps the worst environment in which children might experience the effects of passive smoking.

Nor do I think there is much of a case for a ban on advertising certain foods. People are perfectly capable of making up their own minds on what they want to eat and whilst I am not against information campaigns to help them come to a formed conclusion, a ban on advertising seems a very draconian step to take.

Three bans in one week seem quite excessive for any Government. It certainly marks a huge extension to the Nanny State. It is one of the reasons why I believe that our Government is truly putting our freedoms at risk.