Following Gordon Browns eighth budget please see the following comments.

Pensioners

Party Response: Liberal Democrats

Steve Webb MP,  Work and Pensions Spokesman, said: "Whilst we support more help for older pensioners, they will not be fooled by this blatant pre-election bribe. For all the hype surrounding these plans, after only one year pensioners will be back to square one.

"Pensioners have got short shrift from this Budget. For millions the reality is meanstesting, complexity and form-filling.

"Pensioners weren’t born yesterday. They will soon realise the reality behind Brown’s latest headline-grabber."

Forum Response: Help the Aged

Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at Help the Aged, responded: "For all the apparent generosity of the Chancellor's one-off gifts, in this Budget there was no bold bid to address pensioner poverty. The one-year £100 subsidy, nominally meant to help people over 70 with Council Tax bills, will clearly help, but 17 per cent of pensioners remain in persistent poverty. Up to one third of pensioners are not claiming Council Tax Benefit, which would alleviate the need to pay some or all of the tax in the first place. The Chancellor confirmed his support for the means-tested Pension Credit, which is currently being claimed by only about half of those older people entitled to it. There would be no need for gifts like this if the government was to review its fixation with means testing. This Budget held no promise that the growing wealth of the country, during the most sustained period of growth since the industrial revolution, would be shared with the pensioner population. 

"A central government theme is that working longer and saving more will avert a pensions crisis. This Budget offers no incentives on these fronts.

"Simplifying the taxation of pension schemes is welcome, but there are no incentives for employers to sponsor schemes, or for employers and employees to contribute to them. Closing tax avoidance loopholes may be virtuous, but there is no new encouragement for people to save.

"There is no significant retraining and education package for older workers, nor is there any incentive for employers to recruit and retain older employees.

"The productivity and revenue gained from encouraging more older people to work would make a significant difference to the limitations that the Chancellor will face in future Spending Reviews and Budgets. This was an opportunity to be bold, and is an opportunity missed."

Forum Response: Age Concern

Gordon Lishman, Age Concern's Director-General, , says:  "Older people are not winners in this Budget and once again they have been largely ignored. The Chancellor's promise to give an extra £100 to over 70s this year shows his recognition of the council tax crisis - but this is a short-term measure and not the answer.
"It's a disgrace that the state pension is so inadequate that people have to rely on one-off payments to cover daily living costs. The government must turn its back on means-testing and increase the Basic State Pension to a minimum of £105 per week to lift pensioners out of poverty.

"We are also deeply frustrated that the government has ignored pension reform for women and carers. It has publicly recognised the state pension system is failing them yet continually breaks its promise to act.  Once again this group has been left empty-handed."

Forum Responses: Association of British Insurers

Mary Francis, director general of the ABI, said: “The good news on saving is that the Chancellor has confirmed the government’s plans to simplify the complex and unwieldy tax regime governing pensions. The new system will be better for savers and for the pensions industry.

“We are pleased that the government has responded positively to our view that the lifetime allowance should be reviewed regularly and that there are plans to raise it to £1.8m.

“The move of the implementation date to 2006 is sensible and we hope that rapid progress can now be made to achieve this.”

Forum Response: Local Government Information Unit

Dennis Reed, LGIU Chief Executive, said:"The Budget also fails to target any help to the low paid or pensioners under 70 to help them with recent council tax increases. Even if the Government grasps the nettle on reforming the council tax, there will still be a few years in which people have to contend with the effects of this regressive tax."

Carers

Forum Response: Carers UK

Imelda Redmond, chief executive of Carers UK said: "This feels like the missing link in the return to work agenda. We know from our Action on Carers and Employment project, which aims to support carers in work and find measures to help them to return to employment, that carers often struggle to find the right skills advice and support which enables them to gain skills.

"Of course, the detail of the newly proposed policy will be important. For example, how carers who still have caring responsibilities are helped in accessing these opportunities and whether there will be any training conditions for certain benefit claimants. However, we know that pre-vocational training is vital to help carers back into work after a period of caring. With thousands of carers giving up work every year in order to care, this is not just an important personal issue for carers, but an important economic issue, too.

"In their document, Developing the Skills of Young People, the government has said that the review of mainstream [skills] support for young people will turn to the specific needs of disabled people and carers in its next phase which is welcome.

"However,many carers would feel that the Budget statement did not contain much for them.  Carers would be keenly watching the Comprehensive Spending Review to hear about the future of the vital Carers Grant providing vital money for breaks and which runs out in 2006. In that summer statement, Carers UK would also be looking for new measures to support for carers who wish to return to work and access learning opportunities and financial support for carers. "

Education

Party Response: Liberal Democrats

Phil Willis MP, Liberal Democrat Education spokesperson, said: "The increased funding for education will be welcomed by schools. But money must go directly into the front-line services.

"To make a real difference, Ministers should combine the long-overdue reduction of DfES staff by one third, with a one third reduction of government initiatives, targets and interference.

"Despite the Chancellor’s rhetoric towards early years education, significant numbers of children will be left without essential early years services even by 2008.

"The chancellor was also alarmingly silent about any new resources for further education colleges, which are the engine room for the skills agenda."

Doug McAvoy, NUT general secretary, said: “The chancellor appears to have responded to the needs of the education service. But in the past, what looked like an increase resulted in schools continuing to be underfunded.

“I welcome the chancellor’s commitment to education and the increased investment. But the increases are applied to a woefully inadequate base. The 4.4 per cent increase is unlikely to make good the deficit and at the same time equip schools adequately to enable them to meet the demands made on them.

“We will monitor carefully how the government intends the money to be spent.

“While I welcome the chancellor’s emphasis on early education and childcare, I must question Charles Clarke’s approach to so-called reforms of the teaching profession.

“The chancellor committed himself to rising numbers of teachers and teaching assistants. This is in direct contrast to the consequences of the government’s remodeling agenda.

“The Prime Minister must back his chancellor’s commitment to retaining and increasing the number of teachers which isn’t mirrored by Charles Clarke’s approach to reform of the teaching profession. The pay settlement imposed until 2006 gives teachers inflation only increases which will not recruit and retain the necessary staff.

“His commitment to increasing capital funding is welcome but the promise of new secondary school buildings is dependent upon such schools having spaces for teaching 120 pupils in the same class: hardly a positive reform.”

Forum Response: Universities UK

Diana Warwick, Chief Executive, Universities UK, said: "Universities have a key role to play in ensuring Britain is a world-class location for science and innovation and we welcome the Chancellor's intention to raise the level of science funding to achieve this vision. Our Spending Review submission also highlights additional investment needs - notably in teaching and human resources - which must be fully funded if we are to play our part. We look to the Spending Review settlement in July to provide the necessary funding."

Forum Response: GMB - Britains General Union

Kevin Curran, general secretary of the GMB, Britain’s General Union said: “This budget has responded to the GMB’s calls for education priorities to be broadened to include skills and not just universities.  Encouraging people of all ages to continue updating or learning new skills will help to strengthen our economy and maintain our low levels of unemployment.

“This budget is a good first step but apprenticeships need to be further encouraged so we can fill skills gaps including plumbers, electricians and construction workers that we desperately need."

Forum Response: National Union of Teachers

Doug McAvoy, NUT general secretary said: "Commenting on Education Secretary Charles Clarke’s statement, I believe Charles Clarke’s statement raises questions about the impact of the Government’s funding allocation and school workforce reform.