Tackling Intergenerational Unfairness (Select Committee Report)

Debate between Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill and Lord Bichard

Monday 25th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Bichard (CB) [V]]

I am sorry.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

Is that Lord Bichard?

[Lord Bichard (CB) [V]]

It is. I thought I was being unmuted. I have now unmuted myself, and I apologise to Members for that.

If I may continue, I will say that I share the frustration and disappointment already expressed about the delay in bringing this report to the House. But I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that when you come to reread the report now it seems, in many ways. more relevant than when we wrote it two long years ago, and I want to focus on two issues where that is particularly the case.

Some people will have been surprised that the committee concluded that what we call “the intergenerational compact” remains strong. However, we found little evidence that one generation blamed another for the problems that it faced, and much evidence that different generations were providing each other with support, especially within communities and families. In a world that has become much more polarised during the pandemic, we should value and protect that compact. As the divisions between rich and poor, black and white, north and south, and leave and remain have become more pronounced, we really cannot afford to overlay them with intergenerational rifts.

Yet some generational groups will exit the pandemic harbouring a sense of injustice and looking to be reassured. As the report points out, to sustain or rediscover a positive relationship between generations, there needs to be

“a broad equivalence, and a sense of equivalence, about what is contributed … and what is received”

from the state during a lifetime. Quite simply, generations need to feel that they are getting a fair deal. For that to be achieved, Governments need to be—at the very least—aware of and able to explain the consequences of new policy proposals across the generations, as well as the changing impact of existing policies. That is why the committee made what I think are some very straightforward and simple recommendations. For example, it suggests:

“The Government should create Intergenerational Impact Assessments for all draft legislation … invest in developing its capacity to model the generational effects of tax and benefits policies”


and focus more on the long term. As the report says, to tackle a problem properly you need to understand it. I think we were saying that we do not yet have the data to understand it well.

As has been said, the Government’s response to these proposals has been, frankly, disappointing. The emphasis on reduced borrowing to lessen the debt burden on future generations never addressed the report’s recommendations and now looks sadly out of touch with the reality of public finances. The promise to continue to publish “a full Spending Review” at the conclusion of any comprehensive spending review does nothing to deliver the longer-term focus that the committee argued was needed, and the reference to the Treasury’s Green Book does little to respond to the simple suggestion that there should be intergenerational impact assessments. As has been said—I will not labour the point—the ONS response was much more positive. Is it too much to ask the new Government to look again at the committee’s recommendations on accounting for the future? I hope not.

The other section of the report that I want to touch on is chapter 6 and the importance of communities, about which the committee felt strongly. It stated:

“Community initiatives that bring generations together are an important way of cementing intergenerational bonds”


and tackling social problems such as loneliness and rough sleeping. They certainly are. The Government should therefore enable, rather than police, community activity. This theme was picked up on very strongly by the Public Services Committee in its recent interim report. The committee felt that what we saw were a series of initiatives on community activity but not a coherent strategy. I fear that that is still the situation and will remain the case until we get the long-awaited devolution White Paper. We are still not giving sufficient emphasis to places, communities and devolution. I hope that we will do so in future, and that this report will help us in that.