I refer to the new offence of causing death by careless driving.
This new offence will carry a maximum penalty of five years' jail.

I can understand how anyone who has lost a loved one in a road accident wants the person who was responsible for the accident to pay a maximum penalty.

But is this fair and just? If the accident was caused by someone under the influence of drink, using a mobile phone, recklessly driving at excessive speed, etc., then that person deserves a massive sentence. In my book, many years in jail.

If a motorist is momentarily careless – and it happens every second of every day somewhere, it's a different matter.

How many of us can honestly say that we have never driven from a minor road onto a major road governed by a "stop" sign without actually stopping?

How many of us have had narrow squeaks caused by all manner of distractions – sneezing, something happening which takes your eye momentarily from the road ahead?

The possibilities are endless and 99 times out of 100 we (thankfully) get away with it without causing an accident.

That moment of carelessness could result in a collision with another car which causes damage only.

Or it could result in a collision with a motor cyclist, cyclist or pedestrian and cause serious injury or death.

But the act of carelessness is exactly the same, the only difference is the consequence.

This legislation moves us away from considering the act of carelessness and into the realm of considering the consequences of it.

The illogical conclusion of this would be to fine a motorist, say, £150 if the carelessness resulted in vehicle damage only; three months' jail if the consequence for the other driver/pedestrian was a broken arm or leg; six months for a head injury, three years for paralysis and five years for death.

If you kill two people, then is the jail sentence to be doubled?

Let's look at the illogical nature of this legislation a bit further. Why not extend this to all other walks of life – if you are careless at home or at work and someone has an accident, should we not cart the person off to jail as well?

Already on the statute books is plenty of legislation to deal with reckless and dangerous drivers who cause death. Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving carries a maximum long period of imprisonment.

There is a world of difference between a motorist who is reckless or dangerous and one who has momentary carelessness.

Politicians know this, but they also know that jumping on an emotional bandwagon brings them votes, and with Labour struggling in the opinion polls expect a lot more emotional silly nonsense from them.

More emotional nonsense

Let's now look at another bit of emotional nonsense. I refer to battery hens and eggs. The government wants farmers to move away from this form of farming and is setting a time-table for it.

Again, it is pandering to popular emotion on the issue. I am totally in favour of banning this form of factory farming – I believe it is equally as cruel as the appalling practice of veal production and live animal exports.

However, outlawing battery farming and rearing chicken in barns will end cheap chicken and meat in the shops – that is unless Britain bans all imports.

Indian and Chinese restaurants use tons upon tons of cheap imported meat products from Asia. You can imagine how that is produced.

Is that imported meat to be banned? Are we prepared to end the £3.50 curry at the Indian take-away?

It's all very well the government swaying on every emotional whim to get votes, without looking at the entire consequence of its actions.

I can see the probability of the government banning the production of cheap eggs and meat products in the UK on the wave of emotion, yet still allowing cheap imports.

That will mean more UK farmers will be thrown on the scrap heap. Thanks, politicians – good one!