Ministers have been accused of going over the top in their focus on crime and security. But there are some good things in the proposals for the next parliamentary session, writes John Ludlow With this year's Queen's Speech, the government has set the tone not only for the new parliamentary session but also for the coming General Election, widely expected on 5 May.

The motif is clearly crime and security, with the Home Office dominating the huge programme of 30 Bills and nine draft Bills. The message is simple - that the country is under severe threat and that tough new measures are needed if Britain is to remain safe and secure.


Some commentators have accused the home secretary of deliberately creating a climate of fear in order to justify Draconian powers and further restrictions on liberty. While others would not go quite that far, there is certainly concern that the government's proposals are somewhat disproportionate to the real threat.


With legislation on counter-terrorism on hold until after the election, the main thrust of the government's crime and security policy is contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Powers Bill, published less than 24 hours after the speech itself. This will set up the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which has already been dubbed the 'British FBI', in order to deal in particular with criminal gangs and drug dealers. It is expected that most lawyers would find this perfectly acceptable, providing the body is accountable and transparent in the exercise of its powers.


Far more worrying is the plan to grant the police a power of arrest for all offences, including the very minor, as well as a power to DNA-swab or fingerprint persons suspected of, but not arrested for, an offence. This is a serious curtailment of civil liberty and it is difficult to see why it is needed at this time. Indeed, this feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.


Such a criticism could also be levelled at the Identity Cards Bill, announced at the same time. The government has never made out a convincing case for this hugely expensive, complex and burdensome scheme and is unlikely to do so now. This measure will give to ministers wide powers to record, retain and disseminate personal data on everyone, and yet there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will have any appreciable impact on levels of crime or security. This simply does not make sense.


Far more welcome, perhaps, is the awkwardly-titled Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. This is a further 'crackdown' on the kinds of anti-social behaviour that blight many people's lives - under-age drinking, dog fouling, litter-dropping and the like - though the Law Society still has some concerns about the use of fixed-penalty notices for children. The government should also be congratulated for introducing the Management of Offenders Bill, which will replace prison sentences with non-custodial sentences and fines in many cases. This is creative thinking and a move forward.


There is also more good news as we move away from the crime agenda, with a Bill to establish a commission for equality and human rights, and another to extend and strengthen the law on disability discrimination. That is not to say they could not be improved in some way. For example, there is a view that the powers and functions of the commission in relation to human rights, as currently drafted, are inadequate, while the definition of disability could be extended to include people with mental health problems. But these Bills are still a welcome antidote to the government's proposals on security.


Two of the carry-over bills from the last session also show the government in a more progressive light. The Constitutional Reform Bill has had a troubled passage so far, with organised resistance in the House of Lords, but its plans for a judicial appointments commission and a supreme court are unquestionably enlightened. The government may struggle to see the Bill through this session, but the Law Society has given it full support.


The Mental Capacity Bill, another 'carry-over', remains on track despite being labelled - inaccurately - as pro-euthanasia by its detractors, both inside and outside Parliament.


Many experts see this as a much-needed reform which will help to protect one of the most vulnerable groups in society.


There are also a number of interesting Bills announced in draft, including corporate manslaughter and company law reform. Of course, none of these will reach the statute book until after the general election. Indeed, given the fact that the prime minister is likely to dissolve Parliament in early April, this is probably a fate that will befall the majority of the Bills announced this session.


John Ludlow is head of the parliamentary unit at the Law Society