Forum Response: Institute of Directors
Graeme Leach, chief economist at the IoD, said: "We are still a long way from genuine structural reform in our public services. The Chancellor's plans to reduce civil service head count are welcome - and long overdue. But they must be accompanied by more choice and competition in health and education.
"Targets for tackling waste are all very well, but the real test will be in the implementation. The Chancellor needs to go much further than today's pre-election rhetoric. We need real reform, not just relocation."
Forum Response: FDA
Jonathan Baume, FDA general secretary said: "Job cuts announced today risk seriously damaging the ability of the civil service to develop and implement new policies and programmes. This is a very retrograde way of approaching efficiency, which seems more aimed at generating political beneficial headlines than creating a better equipped civil service. We had hoped that focusing on crude numbers-cutting was an approach abandoned 20 years ago. Even at this late stage I urge the political parties to end this jobs lottery.
"These cuts will undermine the capability of the service to respond to future challenges and changes, and will inevitably lead to an increased reliance on external consultants and contractors which we know from experience end up costing the tax payer more in the long run.
"The FDA supports measures that enhance the efficiency of the civil service and backed the premise behind Peter Gershon's efficiency review. These cuts, however, will have serious consequences for the individual civil servants involved and their families and it is not clear that they will improve the delivery of public services."
Forum Response: GMB
Kevin Curran GMB General Secretary said: "We again welcome the Government's commitment to extra spending in health and education.
"But we are alarmed to learn of the Chancellor's plans to cut well over 80,000 jobs from the civil service. Cuts on this scale are likely to have an impact on front line public services. That is something we would oppose.
"Significant new spending on defence will help to protect vital manufacturing jobs in the UK's heartlands. However, we are disappointed that the Review could not offer more to create new jobs in industry."
Forum Response: Local Government Information Unit
Kevin Morton, Local Government Information Unit spokesman, said: "The spending review has some positive points, but its approach to local government is uneven. This demonstrates the need for a clear restatement of local government's constitutional role in society.
"The three year budget idea is welcome, bringing councils into line with other departments and better able to plan their finances ahead. The grant funding increase will also be welcome, but without changes to the balance of funding to give councils a broader local tax base, and council tax reform, the danger remains that any elements that are not fully funded could put pressure on council tax payers again. The LGIU supports independent auditing of the cost of any new duties or initiatives that the centre places on local government to ensure that they are fully funded and that there is not a hidden sting for council tax payers or a squeeze on other local services that may not be a Whitehall priority.
"The extension of ring fencing in education funding is designed to leave local government with little more than an administrative role, but we await the consultation on this. The government will struggle to devise a system that leaves councils with no role at all. It would have been desirable in the new era of three-year budgets to have announced a move away from the days of ringfencing and capping.
"Although much detail needs to be added, the idea of pooling funding streams has potential for efficiency gains and could enable councils to demonstrate their value in joining up local area services and strengthening accountability.The LGIU has called for such an initiative in our Charter for a New Era in Local Governance.
"The increase in funding for social house-building is welcome. However, with this extra money largely destined to be channelled through unelected quangos and registered social landlords, rather than through local government, public accountability on the value for money gained for this investment will be lacking."
Forum Response: Woodland Trust
Ed Pomfret , senior public affairs officer at the Woodland Trust said: "While we welcome the money for sustainable food and farming and the fact that the Department for Transport is, for the first time, to be held account for greenhouse gas emissions as a result of its decisions, we are concerned that the environment has not been well served by the CSR. Given that grants for woodland creation have just been frozen until 2006/7 we had hoped that the Chancellor would recognise that Defra and the Forestry Commission are already operating in a way limited by budgetary constraints and significantly increase funding for environmental projects.
"Enhancing and protecting the environment is a central plank of sustainable development and we are disappointed that Defra will see a significantly lower increase in its budget over the next three years compared to the previous three.
"We are also disappointed that for all the talk of efficiency savings, little is being done to ensure that energy efficiency and sustainable procurement are placed at the heart of government. We remain concerned that the Department for Transport's budget could end up being spent on damaging new roads and airport expansion rather than sustainable alternatives."
Forum Response: Chemical Industries Association
John Gardner CIA communications director commented: “We are relieved that the key spending programmes on science, technology and innovation all seem to have been protected and, indeed, enhanced. These programmes are the seed corn of the chemical sector’s future.
“We also note the considerable changes now due within the DTI itself. We very much hope that this restructuring will, in practice, continue to allow the Department to play a major business sponsorship role”.
Forum Response: Construction Products Association
Michael Ankers, chief executive of the Construction Products Association said: "We were pleased to see that the government has recognised the need to increase the level of social housing provision in this country. However, although the 50 per cent increase in new social housing starts by 2008 sounds significant, it translates into an additional 10,000 new social housing units a year, just half the increase that the recent Barker Review recommended. Nonetheless, it is a first step in the right direction.
"Spending proposals for schools and health facilities had already been announced, but it is re-assuring that the government remains committed to its investment plans in these important areas. The targets the government has set for improving such facilities require a long term funding commitment to help ensure the industry delivers best value solutions for the investment that is being made.
"Investment in the transport infrastructure does give us cause for concern. The Spending Review announced an increase in spending over and above current levels of expenditure. However, transport capital spending has been slashed by 10 per cent next year and we remain concerned that the road building programme will be the loser. In addition, the PSA target for increasing rail usage has been dropped, suggesting little new investment in increasing rail capacity. We must now wait and see how the government plans to address the scale of the transport problem this country faces when the new Transport Plan is released later this month.
"Other areas that the Association welcomed in the Spending Review included the additional funds available for science and technology, support for investment in low carbon technologies, and a target to eliminate fuel poverty by support for the less well off and the elderly to improve the insulation and heating of their homes."
