1. Governing for the future is both important and difficult. Important because it means getting to grips with the long-term issues that will shape the lives of future generations; difficult because it rubs up against the short-termism that is inherent in the politics of the electoral cycle. Its difficulty is compounded when governing for the future involves painful choices in the present. Lord Turner, who chaired the Government's Pensions Commission, told us that until recently, "… not a single politician would say publicly that the state pension age would have to go up, though I have to say, quite a lot of them would say it to me privately".[1]

2. Along with the political difficulties come practical and organisational constraints, even beyond the fact that it is notoriously hard to make accurate predictions about future trends. Government is organised primarily by departmental boundaries, but looking at the long-term inevitably throws up issues which straddle several departments. Consideration of the future must be built into decision-making today, but thinking about the future may mean abandoning assumptions which underlie current policy. Future and strategic thinking are particular disciplines, but they should be intimately connected to the policy-making process. 'Thinking the unthinkable' can come with a price.

3. It is important to remember that, however effectively strategic work is done, it will not present governments with a series of 'right answers'. Long-term thinking can identify future issues such as a projected increase in the numbers of the elderly. However, it remains a matter of political choice whether the response is to encourage people to make their own provision for long-term care or consider it a state responsibility, and so raise taxes or alter spending priorities. As Dr Geoff Mulgan, former director of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, explained, the purpose of strategic thinking "…is to make sure elected politicians have a better menu of options. The problem in many of these fields is that they are having to make decisions without a sufficiently grounded strategic option to consider and therefore are more likely to go for short-term fixes or second best…".[2]

4. This report considers 'strategic thinking' in Whitehall, but how far into the future should governments look? The work which is conducted by the Foresight Centre in the Office of Science and Innovation looks up to fifty years ahead and uses different scenarios to identify the challenges and opportunities for policy making from the science and technology of the future. On a less ambitious timescale, 'strategies' relate visions of the future to the priorities, actions and policies required to produce the preferred outcomes. They typically look up to ten years ahead. In the private sector, strategy is defined (by the consultants McKinsey & Company) as 'a coherent and evolving portfolio of initiatives to drive shareholder value and long-term performance'.[3] In the public sector, however, strategy is concerned with long-term public value, a complex and contested concept. Accountability is to Parliament and the public rather than to shareholders.

5. Both this and previous governments have done much to build capacity to think, plan, and make policy for the future. In the 1970s the Central Policy Review Staff was set up as a strategic think-tank within government. In the 1990s the Foresight Centre was established to conduct futures work in the scientific sector. The present Government has established a Strategy Unit, appointed strategic advisers, and has set up a number of Commissions and Reviews to engage in future-related work. A major and comprehensive strategy review is currently in progress. It is timely to take stock of the way in which government does strategic and future thinking, and to consider the issues raised.

6. During this inquiry we took evidence from a variety of officials and experts. Our initial call for evidence, in the form of an Issues and Questions Paper, is appended to this report. In order to consider the practical aspects of policy making in the long-term, we looked at two subject areas where the need to think about the future seemed particularly pressing: pensions reform and environmental policy. We have also benefited from the Science and Technology Committee's recent inquiry into Scientific Advice, Risk, and Evidence-Based Policy Making.[4] We heard evidence from a total of twelve witnesses and received fifteen memoranda. The Committee visited Finland to learn about the work of its Parliament's Committee of the Future, and Edinburgh to look at the work of the Scottish Parliament's Futures Forum. We are grateful to all those who gave evidence to the Committee and those who met with us outside Westminster.

2   Q 20 Back

3   http://mckinsey.com/clientservice/strategy/insight.asp Back

4   Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, Scientific Advice, Risk, and Evidence Based Policy Making,HC 900. Back