Governments over the last 30 years have been reluctant to venture into the moral minefield of family policy. So on the face of it Tony Blair's decision to bring out a discussion paper is a brave move.

Indeed, following the Conservatives' much derided "back to basics" campaign there seemed to be a broad consensus that politicians should avoid anything other than the most bland pronouncements on the family.

The incentive to do something, though, is huge. The laissez faire policy has left the UK as the divorce capital of Europe and there is now substantial evidence that family breakdown exacts vast economic and emotional costs.

In benefits alone the state spends £4bn a year - and that does not include the cost of legal aid, the impact of reduced educational attainment, crime costs, housing and a host of other expensive social results.

The big question is what, if anything, can government do?

Marriage as the foundation

The discussion document suggests the state can play a major role through exhortation, education and support.

It begins with a ringing endorsement of marriage as the source of greatest stability in children's lives - so to that extent, the government is not neutral about which type of family is best.

The implication is that two parents are better than one and that married couples offer the best chance of a stable happy environment for their offspring.

In adopting this line ministers have been anxious not to appear to be knocking other forms of family. So while they strongly support marriage, they are quick to point out that many couples who choose not to marry still provide a loving home for their children.

Nevertheless the signal that marriage should underpin family life is important and represents a shift in public policy.

The document goes on to show ways in which government, voluntary bodies and local communities can do more to support families and help keep them together.

Parenting Skills

Since the upbringing of children is the point of all this there is a strong emphasis on parenting skills. The document proposes more and better parenting classes in schools, as well as support for parents when their first child is born.

It suggests the role of health visitors could be enhanced to provide counselling support for couples with young children who, can often experience tensions in their relationships.

There are a number of other initiatives that have already been flagged up.

The government will set up an National Institute for Parenting and the Family, an independent body to advise on future policy and research which interventions work and which do not.

The national phoneline service for parents will be expanded and there will be more support for couples experiencing difficulties in their relationships.

The government is also keen to develop the role of registrars who perform civil marriage ceremonies. At the moment they do not normally advise or counsel couples, unlike vicars and others who conduct religious ceremonies.

Another idea being touted would be to introduce an enforced gap between announcing the intention to marry and the wedding itself.

Raising expectations

Critics will argue that all this does not amount to much, that parenting classes and the like are all very well but will do little to reverse the powerful social forces that have undermined traditional family structures.

On the left, there may be concern at the emphasis on marriage as the preferred family structure.

On the right there will be disdain. Those favouring a return to so-called traditional values believe that the tax and benefit systems work against stable family life in general, and against couples who choose for one of them to stay at home in particular.

Just about everyone is agreed government can do something - they just can't agree what that something is.

The government's supporters argue that its policies will result in higher educational achievement, lower crime, and happier children.

To justify its foray into family life, the government will need to show results. The real danger of launching a family policy is not becoming entwined in a moral morass, but in raising expectations that cannot be delivered.