ANOTHER YEAR, another Queen’s Speech. Today there will be 37 Bills to consider in full or in draft from the Government’s legislative sausage machine. “Legislative junkies”, “nanny state”, cry critics. Regardless of party, there is an anti-government, anti-politics mood about. But changing the law can change lives for the better.
Although Bill Clinton once said the era of “big government” was over, he never pretended an era of “no government” had arrived. Although Ronald Reagan said government meant problems not solutions, the truth is more complex: bad government produces problems, but good government produces solutions.
Government has gone out of fashion. But government matters. And how we use the legislative process can make the difference between hope and despair, opportunity or failure.
Yet we are in a bidding war with our opponents to show who can achieve the most with the smallest government. Who can spend less, with the least staff. Even the Liberals have adopted a new slash-and-burn approach to government, while the Tories talk of fat government. And, yes, a fat legislative session will indeed be unveiled today.
It must be right to root out waste and inefficiency. It is our money that government spends, not its own. But it is important that we defend the positive power for good that government can and should be.
No one wants a “nanny state”, but many need a helping hand, and everyone needs a government that is on your side not on your back.
For example, today’s powerful global economic forces are felt directly by every family: their jobs, their pensions, their security, their environment. Our citizens need government which enables them to cope with these realities, which supports them through the turmoil of change or threat, which empowers them to take decisions over their future and gives them the means to achieve their ambitions.
This is the new dividing line in British politics — a choice between a non-interventionist, “small” government and one that is prepared to act in the public good without nannying. Between government which stands back and lets individuals fend for themselves or government as a force for good. For instance, without tax credits to top up wages for six million hardworking families, it would have been better for them to stay at home on benefit, rather than work.
And, this past year alone, new legislation enacted will give more youngsters from low income backgrounds the chance to go to university; will give every child a trust fund so he has the chance to start adult life with a financial asset; and will give children a new commissioner to champion their rights.
But there is so much more to do to build a genuine opportunity society. Despite the highest levels of employment in Britain’s history there are still worryingly high levels of economic inactivity. It is the duty of government to help those trapped on incapacity benefit by providing the training, skills and opportunities needed to return to work.
There is also more legislation needed to create safe and secure communities by tackling everything from terrorism, drug pushers and serious crime to abandoned vehicles, rowdiness and graffiti so that people can live without fear.
Despite rising educational standards, much more needs to be done to boost vocational education and technical skills. It is the duty of government to encourage more children aged 16 or over to stay on at school or in training.
Despite rising prosperity, more needs to be done to deliver adequate pensions, improve public health, ensure that policing is rooted in the community, and, with far too many finding getting that first foot on the housing ladder an impossible dream, to help everyone to gain an affordable home.
Of course it would be foolish to pretend that every Bill in a Queen’s Speech is the success trumpeted at the time. As a Government, we have routinely allowed Bills to be scrutinised in draft for the first time to improve the quality of legislation. Perhaps it is time for some more formal post-legislative scrutiny as a check on the actual effect of new laws: whether they have worked as intended, whether there are unforeseen side-effects, and whether (as in the case of the Child Support Agency) bureaucracy has got in the way of delivery.
But when government takes action on road safety, we save lives. When we tackle relgious discrimination, or unscrupulous lending, or drug-pushing, as we will in new legislation this coming year, lives will be improved.
This isn't “nanny government”, it is ensuring that everyone has choices and is best equipped to take maximum advantage of those choices.
This also applies to global threats. Markets have a role to play in addressing these. Yet only government action can tackle issues as serious as climate change. The ten warmest years on record have all been since 1990. The number of people affected by floods worldwide has risen from 7 million in the 1960s to 150 million today. The only real answer is governments acting together to cut global emissions through the Kyoto treaty.
Similarly, tackling world poverty requires government action, as has been done through more than doubling Britain’s aid budget in just seven years, putting us on track to achieve the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GDP, and writing off debts in the poorest countries, by providing $70 billion (£46.5 billion) debt relief. Now, through the International Finance Facility — the brainchild of Gordon Brown — Britain is leading the battle to raise an extra $50 billion for education and healthcare for children in the developing world.
So the fundamental choice facing the nation is not a squabble over who can be better managers, who is most efficient, who can do the most for the public with the least staff in the fewest buildings. It is a choice about the progressive power of government as a force for good. And the yardstick by which the Queen’s Speech might be judged today.
Peter Hain is Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary of State for Wales
Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk
