A review of the book “A Duty Of Care” by Peter Hennessy
I used to know Peter Hennessy in the 1970s when I worked for the Wilson/Callaghan Labour Government and he was the Whitehall Correspondent of the “Times” newspaper. He is now a Professor of Contemporary British History and a crossbench member of the House of Lords. Like many of us, he has thought about the impact of the global pandemic on Britain but, in his case, he has actually written short book on the subject. His central proposition is that, following the production of Sir William Beveridge’s fundamental report of November 1942 and the implementation of most of its far-reaching recommendations by a succession of post-war governments, the impact of the Covid-19 has shown the need for a similarly comprehensive and radical social settlement for post-Covid Britain.The first two-thirds of Hennessy’s narrative is a summary of why and how the Beveridge reforms came about. For Hennessy, the package as whole constituted what he calls “a duty of care” which government has for its citizens and he singles out the National Health Service as “the closest we have ever come as a country and a people to institionalizing altruism”. He sees the decade or so of Margaret Thatcher as a regrettable break with that post-war consensus which augured in the slimmed-down benefits system of the 2010s. He laments Brexit which he insists “carved great chunks out of our national solidarity” and he worries about the possible departure of Scotland from the United Kingdom. In short, he wants to see a more modern and inclusive duty of care.
The final third of the book argues the case for, and indicates some desirable outcomes from, a new Beveridge-like review. He lists 15 government reviews of defence/foreign policy in 71 years and highlights that, by dramatic and neglectful contrast, “we haven’t mounted a single national welfare strategic exercise since Beveridge reported in 1942”. The background to such a review should be a public inquiry into how Britain handled the Covid crisis: “It needs to be one of the greatest, most incisive and authoritative reports of modern times”. Then what we might call Beveridge Part 2 would need to address the long-term funding of our health and care systems and the role of education, training, housing, and transport systems in reducing the present unacceptable inequalities in our society.
It is a highly laudable aim but Hennessy is very thin on specifics. Behind the sound and thunder of party politics, this is what the next general election will really be about.