Bob FM: This gentleman and many others, are confusing different issues. Legislation is only wrong if it failed to reflect the will of Parliament. That doesn't mean that legislation is necessarily wise or justified by subsequent events. Parliament, rightly or wrongly, banned smoking in public houses, and that made it law.
It is far better that lesgislation is soundly based, rather than restling on flimsy
evidence, but that is largely irrelevant in constitutional terms. Parliament cannot be over-ruled by the scientific establishment, without that power being a threat to the Supremacy of Parliament. I thought it was that, that UKIP supposed to be defending.
Take an exmple , the U.K's first Public Health Act (1848). Concern existed about the effect of polluted water on public health. Separating drinking water from other water courses was deemed prudent; stagnent water holes on pavements were also identified as a possible threat, not to mention cess-pools and general street drainage. It was to be many more years before Dr Snow identified cholera as a water borne disease. If I remember correctly, it took even longer, to finally verify the relationship of typhoid to general filth and dirty water. Are you arguing that the Public Health Act was precipitous and should have post-dated the conclusive scientific evidence?
Parliament was slow in accepting the strong anecdotal evidence concerning
the drug thalidomide. That drug continued to be dispensed lawfully, despite increasing concern about its safely. It wasn't malevolent, or a dereliction of duty by our legislators, it resulted from conflicting evidence from various interest groups. The final consequences were unfortunate and subsequent governments agreed to allocate economic resources to the victims. Have you a similar assurance from the breweries, that they will underwrite any future claims from the customers, should your 'scientific evidence' be found wanting?
There is a debate at the moment about various additives in food. Strong, but not conclusive evidence, suggests that hyperactivity in children, can result from the LAWFULLY added additives in their food. Do you wait another generation before the evidence - one way or the other - is irrefutable, or do we act now?
|