Every Christmas and new year for several decades governments have run campaigns reminding the public that drink-driving is dangerous, selfish — and illegal. And, with hardly any exceptions, the public accept that it is right for the Government to do this. But when the Breathalyser was introduced in 1967, there were plenty of people who decried the invasion of privacy it entailed.
It is not easy to define precisely the line between where government interference in private conduct is legitimate and where it isn’t. But it is not hard to recognise what falls either side: preventing child abuse, domestic violence and drink-driving are, now at least, seen as issues of public interest in the realm of private conduct. But where do the following fall: eating habits, smoking, the content of television advertising and physical fitness?
There are many who consider it ridiculous for the Government to take a position on these issues, or most of them. Right-wing columnists’ word processors are practically programmed to spit out the phrase “nanny state” at the slightest mention of government interference in these areas, and there are powerful commercial interests which support them.
I believe we have to treat grown ups as adults, and everyone has to be free to make his or her own choices. At the same time, however, the Government would be failing in its general responsibility to promote the welfare of the country where it can, if it did not give warning and, sometimes, wield the legislative stick. Not that it is simply a matter of warning, legislating and nothing else. There is no point in exhorting people to take more exercise if there are no attractive facilities available, or in telling parents to give their children a better diet when they cannot afford to do so. And on the other side, government can often work with commercial interests as much as against them.
So call it the nanny state if you like; I call it the empowering, co-operating state.
When I was Minister of Public Health, there was plenty of opposition of the nanny state variety to our ban on tobacco advertising. But the alternative would have been to allow tobacco companies to extend, by skilful advertising, the market of new smokers to replace the 120,000 loyal customers who die from the effects of the product every year.
How have we reached the point where 15 per cent of all teenage children are obese? Is it the rise of the television and PlayStation culture? Is it a decline in the popularity of competitive sport and a lack of physical activity? Or is it the lack of a balanced diet and the replacement of home-cooked meals by fast foods packed with sugar and salt? Is the effective advertising of this kind of product also a factor?
I suspect the answer is that all these factors play a part. Our reaction has to be rooted in the evidence, and buttressed by a consensus on cause and effect. The food industry has in fact already agreed to take steps to cut the levels of salt in prepared food, and, in the interests of keeping their brand images clean, is keen to work with health campaigners to promote balanced diets. At my request, Ofcom, the new media regulator, is assessing the effectiveness of the existing code of practice for food advertising to children.
So legislation is not necessarily the answer. Self-regulation ought always to be the first preference, if a meaningful code can be agreed and properly enforced. That is much the best way of winning the consent of all concerned.
Sometimes governments do move directly to outright bans. In Ireland, Australia and the US, they have moved to ban smoking in public places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants. The aim of these bans is a good one — to protect the health of the public by eliminating second-hand smoke. But government must think through the impact of such action on industry, and encourage it — in its own long-term interest — to work with the grain of public opinion and research evidence where possible. Blunt instruments, such as complete bans, need the support of a substantial majority of the public to work, and should be the last resort when the commercial interests involved refuse to go with the flow of informed public opinion.
I would prefer to see the hospitality industry tap into the huge numbers of non-smokers and reformed smokers (like me) who want to enjoy a night out without infringing the rights of those who still want to smoke. There are millions of us, and yet the proportion of eating and drinking places with no-smoking sections and decent air-conditioning is still tiny.
So I will be inviting the leaders of the hospitality industry to talk about how, together, we can all get what we want: how the Government can increase the choices for non-smokers and the industry can tap into a lucrative market, without anyone being bullied into a lifestyle he doesn’t wish to adopt. I want to see, in everyone’s interests, a wider choice of venue to enjoy, and I want the industry to expand to fill this commercial vacuum. Enlightened self-interest is often the best ally of government policy.
Individuals make their own choices. No one can give up smoking for you. No one can take exercise for you. Government can help people to do what they cannot do alone; it can empower people, giving them opportunities to make decisions which will be for their benefit. But that is its limit.
Often it is the same commentators who decry the rise of the nanny state who then call for government action. That is — to use an unfortunate metaphor in the context of obesity — wanting to have your cake and eat it. The state can help some citizens to come to an informed decision, it can empower others by making the means available, and it can work with business to ensure that public and commercial interests are not in conflict. If that makes the state a nanny, many will welcome her.
The author is Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
