"The big question between now and the election," one government adviser put it to me, "is how much leg we show. My guess is it will be nearer the ankle than the knee." With everyone gearing up for a May election, ministers are anxious not to leave hostages to fortune. The Queen's Speech on 6 December will be necessarily concise. The number of bills will be kept to a minimum. Labour does not want to give away more clues about a second term than it needs to. At the same time, it wants to make clear what it deems important, and what will have to wait.
The two main areas have already been flagged up: a health bill to implement the NHS plan, and a bumper crime bill focusing on loutish behaviour. Education, as ever, will figure prominently, although the view is that teachers need a bit of a break. All three areas will form the centrepiece of the party's manifesto.
These are down-to-earth subjects. Too often, it is said, this government has been distracted by what is officially called "the new politics agenda", but which was often described by one Commons whip as "the new pillocks' agenda". These are the sorts of things that exercise social liberals and which many around the Prime Minister call "peripheral issues": Section 28; freedom of information; certain environmental causes; constitutional reform.
But one big liberal issue has never found its way into the government's legislative plans: arms sales. Until now.
Next February will mark the fifth anniversary of the publication of Sir Richard Scott's report on arms to Iraq. The demolition of the Conservative government's defence at that time was probably Robin Cook's finest parliamentary moment. But the promised legislation to sort out the mess of arms licensing and regulation - which dates back to the Second World War - has never materialised.
Cook has been blocked every step of the way in his attempts to regulate the arms industry. This government's criteria for assessing arms sales are only marginally more stringent than its predecessor's. From the moment Cook was forced to allow sales of a batch of Hawk fighter aircraft to Indonesia two months after the election, his "ethical dimension" to foreign policy was undermined. True, Britain helped to produce an EU code of conduct on arms sales; and an annual register of UK sales has been published, with each edition becoming a little more transparent and less abstruse than the one before.
But we have not had an all-encompassing arms control bill. Cook has had supporters: Clare Short and, more recently, Stephen Byers, a late convert to the cause. He has tried to wean the Department of Trade and Industry away from its "export at all costs" mentality. But those in favour of a bill have faced an unholy alliance of trade unions and arms companies, which have always found a receptive ear in Downing Street. In August, it was made known that there would be no time for the bill.
Britain makes up around a quarter of global arms exports. Our arms industry is the most thriving part of our manufacturing sector. Many constituencies depend on it. But it is more than that.
Another reason for Tony Blair's scepticism about curbing weapons is the message it sends. He does not want to be seen as a "peacenik". He is an advocate of "tough ethics"; in other words, of Britain intervening to help impose a certain value structure. According to officials in Downing Street, he regards the army's role in Sierra Leone as crucial to this message.
Yet polling evidence suggests that the voters do not share Blair's views. Surveys show a huge majority of voters (87 per cent in an opinion poll last February) in favour of the immediate introduction of tighter controls. Among voters aged 18-25, the figure is even higher. (This does not mean the unions are out of touch with their members, because only 8 per cent in that age group are union members.)
Whether ministers and whips like it or not, these "pillocks'" issues could be crucial if young voters are to be reconnected to mainstream politics. The government seems reluctantly to have recognised this with the environment, with freedom of information, and possibly with hunting. Until now, there has been little suggestion that, beyond paying lip-service to the issue, ministers were prepared to think radically on arms sales.
The DTI was asked to draft a bill in the spring, which would also cover the complicated issues of dealing and arms brokering. (A white paper on strategic export controls was first published by the DTI in 1998.) That fell by the wayside.
Now, I am told, there is a chance that the Queen's Speech will include a proposal for a new draft bill. Talks are still going on, but it is likely that the government will publish the draft bill between December and May, allowing it to pledge full introduction of the legislation after the election. Then, at last, Labour will have to show the colour of its arms money.
The writer is a freelance commentator and broadcaster
