Not surprising that Reeves is expected to once again freeze fuel duty given her focus on the cost of living.

But if they keep doing this, revenue in 2029/30 will be £4.8bn lower than the numbers pencilled in. The cumulative cost of these freezes (+ 5p cut) since 2010/11 has been ~£100bn (!).

Good to see Reeves defending the importance of SR settlements (where changes should be avoided). But disappointing if this means using highly optimistic assumptions re. future tech efficiencies (eg £45bn) to pencil in spending cuts beyond the SR period rather than confronting the need for tax reform

Timing
Government could have rushed to do a multi-year SR within 4-5 months of the election, but that would have been a mistake. The one year SR allowed time for a more in-depth and comprehensive multi-year review (and will give depts >9 months before plans come into force in Apr 2026) (4/8)

Regular cycle of SRs
Uncertainty on SR timing in the past has made it harder for depts to plan spending effectively. A regular rhythm of spending reviews - setting 3y day-to-day and 5y capital budgets (4y at this SR) - will provide greater stability (if they stick to it) (2/8)

And to launch the report today, we are hosting a panel of former reviewers (and a former review commissioner) to discuss what this government could learn from their experiences at 2pm. There’s still time to sign up here: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/govern...
(12/12)

The current approach to independent reviews is too ad hoc. There's no published guidance on when to establish a review, or how to set up and run it. We think government should take a more systematic approach, to help ensure reviews can help pave the path for change, not just delay decisions
(11/12)

Whatever the format (single reviewer, commission, advisory panel etc.), government should generally appoint a one strong, lead reviewer who can be the touch point for government engagement and provide clear direction for the review, while also having credibility with external stakeholders
(10/12)

Reviewers normally care a lot about the topic they’re reviewing – so they should consider putting structures in place to monitor progress after their review and support adoption of recommendations, including the role they could play (e.g. follow-up report 1y on, advisory roles etc.)
(9/12)

Reviewers should absolutely engage with external stakeholders (this is one of the key benefits of an independent review), but also engage closely with the those inside government who, ultimately, will decide on whether to implement the reviews recommendations
(8/12)

Reviewers must try to properly understand the motivation behind the government setting up the review. Yes, that means terms of reference and scope being clear, but its much more than that. Getting to the bottom of why a review is set up helps to frame the review and approach taken
(7/12)

We've got a report out later this week on how to set up and run these independent policy reviews to drive reform. And on Thursday, an event with former reviewers and Ed Balls, a review commissioner as both a SpAd and minister
Sign up here: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/govern...

Given the PM's recent scepticism about reviews (despite setting up quite a few...), am really looking forward to hearing from these former reviewers (+ commissioner of reviews Ed Balls) about how they should (and should not) be used to drive reform
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/govern...

Good FT editorial highlighting importance of plans for where cuts will fall. It's reasonable for details of these to come at the June SR, but any decision on the overall envelope this week really should be informed by provisional plans + strategy for cuts/productivity, not just "short term fiddling"

Yes independent reviews can be used to kick the can down the road, but they're also a useful policy-making tool in the right context

Key thing is they're commissioned BY MINISTERS who should use them to inform decision-making (though often use them to delay difficult choices)

(from PM's speech⬇️)

My guess at the planned spending review timetable given announcements (pale colours are years replaced by the new SR each time)

Means social care commission reporting after SR27, but before SR29 (and most likely pre-next GE, unless it reports late 2028 + there's a spring/summer 2028 election...)

The Chancellor again highlighting the commitment to cut consultancy spend in her conference speech

As pointed out in our report last week, there are opportunities to do this in the years ahead as management consultancy contracts come to an end