CHILDREN'S minister Margaret Hodge will rue the speech which tried to justify the state's intrusion into family life.

Predictably, her comments have been seized upon by those eager to accuse the Government of creating a "nanny state".

Yet the thrust of what Mrs Hodge has to say - that governments have always involved themselves in family issues - is undeniably true. Her references to legislation which introduced compulsory education or outlawed child labour are entirely valid.

Indeed, it is difficult to think of any legislation which does not impinge to a lesser or greater degree on people's lives.

Opposition politicians need to ration their use of the term "nanny state". In recent weeks, rather curiously, it has been used to describe the hunting ban and proposed laws on smoking.

The more the term is hijacked by lobby groups, the less effective it will be as a tool of constructive opposition.

While there is justification in curbing the interference of the state in our everyday lives, we must balance that against the need to give governments the freedom to do what they are elected to do - govern.