Commission on Social justice: Misgivings tinge enthusiastic welcome for body of report: Rosie Waterhouse and Nicholas Timmins gauge reaction to the commission's main proposals

Trade unions, pressure groups and independent economists gave an enthusiastic welcome to many of the proposals.

But, unsurprisingly, they had deep misgivings about some of the more radical austerity measures, such as a lack of commitment to real increases of the state pension, taxing child benefit and forcing lone parents with children over a certain age to be available for work to qualify for benefits.

John Monks, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said the commission's 400-page book was a 'landmark report' which, like the Beveridge report, would be a rich source of ideas for many years. 'The welfare state cannot be seen in isolation from the rest of the economy and the world of work,' he said. 'This is why full employment and a decent minimum wage are key elements in any plan for social justice.'

Paul Convery, of the Unemployment Unit, a research and pressure group, said: 'The great thing . . . is they are heavily emphasising that welfare is the last thing we want. We want people to be doing work that they wish to do, that satisfies them and that provides them with reasonable earnings and security.'

Sue Slipman, director of the National Council for One Parent Families, welcomed the acknowledgement that access to training and affordable child care were necessary to ease the way back to financial independence.

But she added: 'We do not think it is necessary to make it compulsory for lone parents to be available for work when their children reach a certain age.

'Whilst most lone parents would jump at the chance of going out to work, there will be circumstances after family breakdown where the parent with care of the children will judge that she or he should be at home with them.'

Sally Witcher, director of the Child Poverty Action Group, welcomed the commitment to invest in families and children, but she said: 'We are concerned about the proposal to tax child benefit at the higher rate. This measure on its own raises an inconsequential amount of money in return for considerable administrative complexity.'

On pensions, Sally Greengross, director general of Age Concern England, said: 'The commission's proposals . . . could make financial security in later life a reality for all current and future pensioners.

'However, Age Concern is disappointed the commission hasn't addressed the question of what an adequate basic level of pension is and how and when it will be uprated.'

Andrew Dilnot, director of the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies, praised the proposal for a minimum pension guarantee. He said that if Labour accepted it, 'the shift from the 1992 manifesto is an enormous one. It is very brave of them to face up to it'.

John Maples, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, said: 'This document is long on generalities and short on detail. Labour needs to say which of these ideas they support - and how much they would cost the taxpayer. The proposals on pensions, unemployment and education alone could cost the taxpayer dear.'

He said the proposal for a minimum wage would force thousands of people out of jobs.

David Green, director of the health and welfare unit of the right- wing Institute of Economic Affairs, said the report was 'a re-hash of the tired egalitarian agenda with some philosophical thinking about the community thrown in'.