By Vivienne Russell
15 November 2010
The Comprehensive Spending Review should have produced tougher measures on welfare reform and done more on job creation, according to ordinary members of the public.
A ‘citizens’ jury’ of 18 people came together earlier this month to discuss their reactions to the CSR and look in detail at the specific proposals within in. The jury was convened by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers, who published the jury’s verdict today.
Among the measures to win the jury’s backing were proposals to raise the state pension age, rationalise defence spending and reform the criminal justice system. They also backed measures to crack down on welfare spending, but said the government could have gone further, singling out proposed benefit caps as too high.
Unpopular aspects of the CSR included the protection for international aid spending and higher tuition fees. The jury also questioned why there was little detail on where new jobs would come from.
Findings from the exercise revealed that people are not comfortable with local variation. While the jury backed the idea of a pupil premium to direct more money at the most disadvantaged children, they felt the premium should be set at a nationally consistent level. The English jury also revealed they were not happy with different funding and charging arrangements for different parts of the UK, stating that public services should be ‘equal across the nations’.
Views were mixed on the fairness of the CSR. Some jurors felt that ‘the people in the middle’ would be hardest hit, while others thought the poorest would bear the brunt of the cuts.
There was surprise that pensioners were not asked to contribute more. While the principle of sharing the pain was well supported, jurors said some universal benefits, such as free bus passes and the Winter Fuel Allowance, could have been withdrawn from wealthier pensioners.
There was also a widespread perception that much more could be done to eliminate back-office inefficiencies.
