The Further Integration of the Two Systems

Transcription

1 Devolution, Social Security and Welfare Reform Derek Birrell and Ann Marie Gray School of Criminology, Politics and Social Policy University of Ulster DRAFT: NOT TO BE QUOTED Introduction While social security is not devolved to Scotland and Wales the position of social security is different in the devolved arrangements for Northern Ireland. Formally and constitutionally social security is a devolved matter but the different position in Northern Ireland is somewhat complex and not always understood, often contributing to such statements that "social security remains reserved within the remit of the national UK Government (Rummery and Greener, 2012). The complexities are the consequence of the historic application of the principle of parity in welfare benefits, new statutory requirements following UK legislation in recent years and aspects of the actual operation of the social security system in Northern Ireland. The radical proposals in the UK Welfare Reform Bill have led to a debate on the scope for variation from the Great Britain provisions in the Northern Ireland version of the Welfare Reform Bill. The Development of the Principle of Parity Historically the division of functions in both the Government of Ireland Act 1920, originally establishing devolution and also the 1973 Northern Ireland Constitutional Act omitted social security from the lists of non-devolved matters, categorised as reserved and excepted services. However, as devolution had developed from the 1930s Northern Ireland adopted the policy that the principle of parity would apply to maintain social security benefits as similar to and at the same level as in Great Britain. A number of financial arrangements, notably the Social Services Agreement Act 1949, provided for maintaining the rates of contributions and benefits in parity and implemented measures to supplement Northern Ireland s finances (Birrell and Heenan, 2010). In practice this has usually meant that separate Northern Ireland legislation was passed in parity with the Westminster legislation, pre 1973 as Acts of the Stormont Parliament, under Direct Rule as orders in council of the Westminster Parliament and with the restoration of devolution as Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly. For example, the 2008 Pension Act (Northern Ireland) replicated the 2007 UK Pensions Act. This process of legislative duplication also covered the large body of secondary legislation and regulations. A small amount of UK legislation did also include Northern Ireland relating to specific matters which were not devolved, for example, national insurance, the appointment of social security commissioners and social security investigatory powers concerning fraud.

2

3 The Further Integration of the Two Systems Some statutory measures have been introduced which have served to underpin parity, particularly in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which re-established devolution. Section 87 of the Act specifies that the UK Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister having responsibility for social security shall from time to time consult one another with a view to securing that, to the extent agreed between them, legislation provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom. The Act provided for arrangements for coordinating the operation of the different legislation in each jurisdiction which was listed. Arrangements were also made to make provision for any necessary financial adjustments through the continuation of the Joint Authority which consisted of UK and Northern Ireland ministers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Further integration occurred when the child benefit and tax credits became the responsibility of HM Revenue and Customs and Revenue and therefore no longer a devolved matter (Evason, 2006). There have also been some more practical measures promoting integration. The Department of Social Development in Northern Ireland and the Department of Work and Pensions share computer systems for the payment of benefits. The Northern Ireland department actually has provided backup services for the DWP in three London districts and eastern England and maintains a storage, search and retrieval service for paid benefit orders for the whole of the UK. Regulations which have been made have created a single system of social security investigation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland comes under the remit of the UK advisory bodies for social security, rather than having separate bodies. The Social Security Advisory Committee gives advice to the relevant Northern Ireland department in respect of social security matters (Saunders, 2007) and the SSAC makes visits to offices and organisations in Northern Ireland and the Chair of the SSAC has held meetings with the minister and senior civil servants in Northern Ireland. One member of the board of the SSAC is selected to represent Northern Ireland interests. Northern Ireland matters have not featured highly in the work of the SSAC and Northern Ireland has not directly commissioned advice from SSAC (Birrell and Heenan, 2010). Since 2006 the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board has had a remit covering Northern Ireland. Some regulatory bodies also cover Northern Ireland including the UK Pensions Regulator set up in The Commissioner for social fund reviews in Great Britain carries out a similar function in Northern Ireland but in a different office. Discretion through Administrative Differences A number of aspects of the administration of the social security system are different in Northern Ireland from Great Britain. In some instances the distinctiveness has not led to significant differences in outcomes. One difference is that the corresponding functions of the Department of Work and Pensions in Great Britain are the responsibility of two different government departments in Northern Ireland, a Department of Social Development which has responsibility for social security with an executive agency, the Social Security Agency for the delivery of benefits, and the Department of Employment and Learning with responsibility for employment, training and education. This has caused some difficulty in producing joined up approaches,

4 for example, in establishing Jobs and Benefits offices. Another difference exists in the administration of housing benefit which is the responsibility of a centralised public body, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, rather than local councils as in Great Britain. A further difference in the general area of social security has occurred in relation to child support. The Child Support Agency became part of a government department, simply as a Child Maintenance Enforcement Division rather than becoming the responsibility of a public body or quango as in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has its own social security commissioners, separate from Great Britain but in practice the Commissioners follow similar interpretations as in Great Britain but case law from Great Britain is not binding (Dickson, 2005). Decision making in the implementation of benefits is also subject to scrutiny by an independent panel. This Standing Committee has at times recommended some variation from prevailing British approaches, for example, in minimising any hardship caused by the transfer to Employment Support Allowance, in the case of vulnerable persons. However the chairperson did note that that "given the principle of parity we cannot make any significant departure from GB policy."(social Security Agency, 2011). Social security matters can also be examined by bodies reporting to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has investigated such matters as uptake of benefits by pensioners and social security fraud and error. These reports can form the basis for scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee which has reported on benefit uptake by pensioners and fraud and error. The departmental Social Development Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly also carries out a scrutiny function over social security and has reported on such issues as benefit take-up programmes, the transition to Employment Support Allowance and the administration of Disability Living Allowance. Breaches in the Principle of Parity Historically there have been few major breaches of the principle of parity in terms of the nature, scope and level of benefits. Examples have been cited relating to strict residential condition (Fahey and McLaughlin, 1999) and repayment of debts measures in the 1970s to counter civil disobedience campaigns. Most of the examples of breaches fall within a category on the periphery or margins of the social security system. With employment matters also devolved as well as social security the welfare to work agenda has produced some divergence from practices in Great Britain. It is possible to identify some variation in programmes of support offered to the unemployed or economically inactive. Wiggan (2012) defines the measures as a mix of parity and minor modifications. The New Deal involved the contracting out of services to various providers, albeit on slightly different bases from Great Britain. In the New Deal for lone parents subsidies of up to six months were available for employers giving placements and the initiative included enhanced personal adviser status, a work preparation programme and return to work financial support (Gray and Carragher, 2009). For a number of years the Department for Employment and Learning has allowed payments for childcare paid to lone parents on statutory training programmes to be used to pay informal childcarers. In Northern Ireland housing benefit has been paid to the landlord and not to tenants as in Great Britain. In 2007 the then SDLP Minister for Social Development felt she had enough leeway to retain the current system. Debates in the Assembly on this issue demonstrate

5 ideological viewpoints with little support for giving tenants responsibility for financial self-management. Northern Ireland has very strong statutory equality requirements for public sector organisations. The section 75 measures of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires public bodies to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between people of different religion, gender, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status and sexual orientation and between people with and without disabilities and with or without dependents although not in relation to socio-economic group. There is a requirement for an equality impact assessment on new and revised policies. This has meant assessments of the impact of welfare changes and a consideration of action that might mitigate any adverse impact or alternative policies to better achieve equality of opportunity. Assessments tend to identify differential impacts, for example, the proposal to increase the pension retirement age but may suggest further monitoring of possible adverse impacts (Department of Social Development, 2010) rather than a policy move from parity. However, a possible proposal by the UK Government to restrict child benefit for larger families could clearly infringe section 75. Further peripheral examples of breaches from parity can be found in the rates rebates, the equivalent of council tax rebate, where the rebate for people living alone or with carers only applies in Northern Ireland for people aged over 70. Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA), while a devolved education responsibility, is closely related to social security. In March 2011 the Minister for Education in England announced the scrapping of the EMA to be replaced by a new system whereby colleges would be able to make discretionary payments to support low income students. In Northern Ireland the Minister for Education has said that the Department is committed to the retention of EMA but that it would be better targetted. Arrangements for the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission to apply to a court to withhold right to a driving licence were not copied in Northern Ireland. Powers to enable people with disabilities over 18 to have greater choice and control over services were not included in the Northern Ireland Order (Law Centre NI, 2011a). Potentially significant was the Financial Assistance Act (NI) 2009 which provides a statutory basis for the Executive to provide assistance to prevent or minimalise impact of the economic downturn but in practice the Act has been little used. The Financial Incentive for Parity Social security in Northern Ireland is funded within what is known as annually managed expenditure, set for the coming year, which lies outside the block grant provided through the Barnett Formula for other devolved matters. Non-contributory benefits are funded in full out of UK general taxation, while contributory benefits are funded from the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund, boosted by annual transfers from the Great Britain National Insurance Fund. Thus benefit funding is in line with the actual entitlement of claimants. The Treasury statement of funding policy states that "If, in the future, the Northern Ireland Executive changes social security policy to differ from the rest of the UK, UK ministers will need to take a view

6 on where and how to adjust this funding." (HM Treasury, 2005). A concordat between the Department of Work and Pensions (UK) and the Department of Social Development provides guidance for consultation on how any divergence was accommodated (DWP, 2003). This indicates a major financial disincentive to abolish parity. The then minister of Social Development was to state in 2007 that Northern Ireland was not self-financing and the cost of paying benefits was heavily subsidised by Great Britain. Therefore, while diverging from parity might be ideologically desirable, financial realities make it extremely problematic (Birrell and Heenan, 2010). This implied that if Northern Ireland departed from parity in benefits the UK Treasury would reduce the level of subsidy to that needed to maintain parity in benefits. After the restoration of devolution in 1999 there was no attempt or proposal to depart from parity in social security (McLaughlin, 2005). A Private Member s Bill introduced in 2008 proposed legislation for a Carer s Allowance. This would have allowed carers who became pensioners to continue to receive the carer s allowance once the state retirement pension was received. The Department of Social Development advised that the proposal would breach the parity principle and the additional costs, some 20 million, would fall to the Northern Ireland block. It was argued that the UK Treasury would take the view that Great Britain should not be subsidising Northern Ireland to pay enhanced benefits. The private member s bill was withdrawn so the real outcome was not tested. However, a decision made earlier in relation to Scotland displayed the same tone of DWP/Treasury thinking. When free Personal Care was introduced in Scotland people lost their entitlement to attendance allowance payments but the DWP/Treasury refused to transfer this funding to the Scottish Executive, some 21.7 million (Simeon, 2003). Welfare Reform and Parity Welfare reform has given rise to more forceful debate about parity. The 2010 Welfare Reform Bill (NI) bringing NI into line with provisions in the 2009 Westminster Welfare Reform Act was the subject of considerable debate with calls for parity to be stretched to reflect the scarcity and cost of childcare in Northern Ireland in relation to requirements being placed on lone mothers to actively seek work (Horgan and Monteith, 2012). The outcome was a clause in the Jobseeker s Allowance (Lone Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations (Northern Ireland) requiring officers to have regard to the impact of the available for work regulations on any child who might be affected by it. This did represent a breach wit Westminster legislation but the decision not to impose regulations and sanctions on a lone parent left the discretion with individual officers. Discussion of further break with parity arose as a result of the 2011 Welfare Reform Bill (DWP, 2011) which gained Royal Assent in March Calls for full parity not to be maintained can be related to three key factors: the economic context and increasing concern about growing unemployment which is expected to increase as public sector cuts are rolled out; disquiet among some groups about the impact of previous welfare reform measures; the predicted greater impact in Northern Ireland of the proposals contained in the 2011 Welfare Reform Bill. The Coalition government s 2010 consultative document 21 st Century Welfare (DWP, 2010a) and the subsequent white paper Universal Credit: welfare that works (DWP, 2010b) had been sent out to public consultation in Northern Ireland. As elsewhere in the UK concerns about the impact of the proposed measures were

7 highlighted. The measures in the 2012 Welfare Reform Act include a new benefit Universal Credit replacing in and out of work benefits including income related Employment Support Allowance, Income based Job Seekers Allowance, tax credits and housing benefit. A strong system of conditionality is attached to Universal Credit with an extended and more stringent system of sanctions. The Act also makes provision for a new benefit, Personal Independence Payments (PIPS) to replace Disability Living Allowance. Despite the Coalition government s claims that the changes was aimed at simplifying the system and making work pay, objections and concerns have been expressed about the impact of the measures on the most disadvantaged (Citizen s Advice Bureau, 2011; Social Security Advisory Committee, 2011; Disability Alliance, 2011). The passing of the Welfare Reform Act in Westminster in 2012 and the decision by the NI Executive to table the same proposals has led to a number of MLAs raising questions in the NI Assembly about what flexibility existed within the confines of parity. In May 2012 the Minister responsible for Social Security in NI, Department for Social Development Minister, Nelson McCausland confirmed that he did not intend to seek accelerated passage for the Welfare Reform and the proposals would therefore be debated in the Assembly. He has however appeared less inclined to stretch parity than his predecessors. Predicted Greater Impact of Welfare Reform Proposals in Northern Ireland. The 2012 Welfare Reform (NI) Bill is the latest in a series of welfare reforms introduced since 2010 which have been argued to have had a negative impact on vulnerable families and individuals (Horgan and Monteith, 2012). The measures included in the 2012 Bill are predicted to be particularly detrimental for a number of reasons. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (Browne, 2010) found that after London, households in Northern Ireland, will be the hardest hit by tax and benefit changes to be implemented as a result of welfare reform between January 2011 and April 2014/15. This is due mainly to higher numbers of people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) who will lose out because of the stricter eligibility test and the fact that Northern Ireland has a higher number of families with children who will be affected by cuts in benefits and tax credits. MacInnes et al (2012) in their Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion report show that half of the 120,000 children living in poverty in NI live in working households yet Hinds (2012) cites Treasury figures showing that over 22,000 households in Northern Ireland lost entitlement to tax credits. She suggests this is largely due to the new eligibility criteria for Working Tax Credit requiring longer working hours. The measures proposed in the 2012 Welfare Reform Bill would also be introduced as public sector cuts are being implemented and as the economy continues to struggle. The economic inactivity rate in NI is already significantly higher than the UK average (Department for Finance and Personnel, 2012). Public sector cuts have only really begun and are likely to have a more severe impact because of the larger number of people employed in the public sector compared to the rest of the UK. It has also been argued that welfare reform policies aimed at moving people from welfare to work, including increased sanctions, are particularly inappropriate given NI s laggard social policies with regard to childcare provision and public transport (Horgan and Gray, 2012). It has also been argued that changes to housing benefit would cause additional hardship. The under-occupation penalty proposed within the welfare reform legislation could result in a reduction in housing benefit for some claimants. A study by Gray and McAnulty (2011 ) has

8 shown that significant numbers of people already have to make up a shortfall in benefit and that the new measures could displace 2000 households. Changes in entitlement whereby people up to the age of 35 rather than 25 would receive a level of housing benefit for shared accommodation is likely to be very difficult in northern Ireland where there is insufficient multi-occupancy dwellings. There has been considerable focus on changes to disability benefits, including an increasing concern about the outworking of previous reforms. The work capability assessment used in the process of migrating people from Incapacity Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance (a process which started in February 2011 with 76,000 people in NI migrating to ESA by 2014) has attracted criticism relating to the nature and conduct of the assessment and the criteria used. According to DSD figures 9,000 claimants have been reassessed, 24 per cent were declared fit for work and lost their entitlement to benefit, 46 per cent were deemed fit for work with support, and 30 per cent were assessed as unfit to work and gained unconditional ESA entitlement (NIA Debates, May 2012). Critics have pointed to the 40 percent of appeals being upheld as evidence of the problems with assessment, a shift from a social to a medical model of disability and an apparent limited understanding of mental health problems demonstrated in the process to date (Law Centre NI, 2012b). Northern Ireland has higher numbers of people with a disability than in the rest of the UK, particularly for reasons of poor mental health per 1,000 population in Northern Ireland receive DLA compared to England with 49.6; 80.7 in Wales and 65.9 in Scotland (DSD, 2010) It is likely that fewer people will qualify for the new Personal Independence Payment than currently qualify for DLA (Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Group, 2011; Murphy and Campbell, 2011) because of more restricted eligibility criteria. The Department for Social Development has estimated that the proposed changes to DLA will result in a 20 percent reduction in working age claimants once the proposals have been fully implemented Law Centre NI, 2011). Implicit Breaches of Parity in the 2012 Welfare Reform Act Within the new proposals it could be suggested that there are what constitute implicit breaches of parity. Previous to the reforms Social Fund payments were included in the social security budget and were covered by parity. However the Westminster Welfare Reform Bill included proposals to remove the discretionary social fund from the social security budget and replace it with a new local service administered through local government in England from April The DWP has placed no requirement on devolved governments in Scotland and Wales to provide the new assistance. Money to be allocated to local authorities in England will be non ringfenced and local authorities are free to design their own schemes to meet local priorities (DWP, 2011). In Northern Ireland no information has been provided regarding what arrangements will replace the discretionary social fund. The Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) put out to consultation by the DSD refers to the unique opportunity to design and develop a replacement scheme.that is Northern Ireland specific. However, the EQIA document does not contain any proposals for a replacement scheme including how much money would be allocated, how it will be administered and whether the funding will be ringfenced. The non ringfencing of the financial allocation to local authorities in England may lead to financially pressed local authorities using the money for other issues and is likely to result in divergent

9 processes and entitlement between local authority areas. Across the UK the new arrangements will result in less parity. There are other examples of where there is likely to be a move (or increased move) away from parity. In Britain Council Tax benefit will be administered by local authorities who, again, will have discretion (Law Centre NI, 2011c). Northern Ireland will clearly not follow the same path given the difficulties inherent in such a localised scheme in the administrative context of Northern Ireland. While as yet there is no indication that Northern Ireland will not legislate for the new conditionality requirements relating to lone mothers contained in the Westminster Act, given that in Northern Ireland no statutory authority has a duty with regard to childcare provision, there is no comprehensive system of extended schools -and in fact does not even have a childcare strategy, there will be pressure on the DSD to build in safeguards (as it did with regard to the 2010 Welfare Reforms). In the light of these factors it is difficult to see how the conditionality proposals could be applied. Demand for Northern Ireland Specific Policies which would breach parity While all of the political parties in NI have raised issues with aspects of the welfare reform, the SDLP has been the most vocal opponent of welfare reform and have consistently opposed the Westminster bill being applied to Northern Ireland. Former SDLP Ministers of Social Development have introduced previous welfare reform measures. While they did facilitate different approaches these were at the edges. However, the party has been consistently outspoken about the negative impact of welfare reforms, has tabled motions in the NI Assembly and has lobbied at Westminster. With regard to the 2012 Welfare Reform Bill it has pressed for greater debate and consultation before a Bill is brought before Assembly and argues that there is greater flexibility than the current NI Minister for Social Development is prepared to exercise. It has held a series of conferences and briefing events on welfare reform throughout Northern Ireland but an SDLP motion in the Assembly which called on Executive ministers to pursue robust negotiations with the Coalition government and to look at all possible legal and operational flexibilities and financial support was defeated (NI Assembly, 2012). A wide range of NGOs have lobbied against measures contained in the Bill. A recent development has been the establishment of a Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Group. Facilitated by the Law Centre NI, it is an umbrella grouping of organisations (including advice organisations, the women s NGO sector, children s NGOs and organisations representing lone parents and older people) that campaign for positive changes to policy, provision and legislation for those in receipt of social security. Its briefing papers and consultation responses have argued that Northern Ireland presents particular challenges with regard to welfare reform and has argued for a specific Northern Ireland approach. Women s organisations have lobbied in relation to what they see as the disproportionately negative impact on women. The Women s Ad-hoc Policy Group in evidence to the Social Development Committee, argues that the reforms will result in reductions to women s income and reduce opportunity and capacity to work and to gain economic autonomy. The group makes a number of recommendations which it believes can be achieved through what it calls flexible parity. These include the

10 designation of the second earner or person with main caring responsibilities as the main applicant for Universal Credit and that the NI legislation and regulations should frame the extension of the shared room rule to age 35 years carefully and in consultation with expert groups to take account of parental and parental care responsibilities (Hinds, 2012). Calls for the need for welfare reform to take grater account of broader circumstances in Northern Ireland have also been made by the Children s Commissioner and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI). The Children s Commissioner has entered the debate with the publication of two reports one looking at the implications of welfare reform from the perspective of the rights of children and young people (Horgan and Monteith, 2012), the other at parity issues (Fitzpatrick and Burrows, 2012). The commissioner commissioned the research because of concerns about the invisibility of children in the considerations about welfare reform and in particular what she described as the failure of the DSD EQIA to assess the impact on children. She was also concerned that parity considerations appeared to be limiting potential for doing something different in NI. Her recommendations in light of the reports mirror those of other organisations in seeking policy which takes greater cognisance of circumstances in Northern Ireland (Lewlesly-Mooney, 2012). The ECNI has been very critical of the EQIA process for the Welfare Reform Bill believing it failed to consider impact across the Section 75 groups and NI specific (ECNI, 2011). The Position of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department for Social Development The structure of the Northern Ireland Executive and the requirement for consensus limits the potential for opposition within the Northern Ireland Executive (Gray and Birrell, 2012). Politicians tend to welcome the aim of the Welfare Reform Bill in terms of simplifying the system but party political differences are evident with regard to the overall measures. There is consensus about the need to maintain parity and avoid the risks which may be associated with breaching parity and this consensus extends in fact to most of the groups contributing to the debate about welfare reform. Most of the calls for divergence from the Westminster Bill relate to what could be achieved within the confines of parity which the minister and DSD officials see as being around operational issues. The DSD rationale for welfare reform in Northern Ireland mirrors that set out by DWP in Britain. The DUP minister has expressed strong support for the welfare reforms generally in keeping with the neo-liberal approach that the DUP has tended to adopt with regard to social policy issues. His support for parity with regard to welfare reform is evident from the following statement: the system has evolved into something that it was never intended to become and it acts as a disincentive for individuals to take up paid work It is important that members understand that welfare reform is not only about changing the social security system but about changing a culture where some people make lifestyle choices to remain on benefits and to make little or no contribution to our society (McCausland, 2012a). The Minister did suggest while speaking at an event that some of the 300m a year of benefits controlled by the Executive might have to be reallocated to the needy. This would include funding for free transport for over 60s and winter fuel payments

11 (McCausland, 2012b). He later appeared to retract this arguing that his comments were wrongly interpreted. The DUP contribution to debates on welfare reform in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the media has been to welcome them but to express some support for mitigating measures to avoid some of the negative impact. As noted earlier, the SDLP has been most vocal in opposing welfare reform. Other parties, Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party have focused on aspects of the reforms mainly linked to disability issues. The Executive has established a sub-committee, chaired by the Minister for Social Development, which is to develop an Executive response to welfare reform, including what mitigating actions can be taken to reduce the negative impact of individual reforms. The fact that the Welfare Reform Bill is not now due to come before the Assembly until September may be indicative of the difficulty of achieving agreement between members of the Executive. Conclusion There has been an absence of comprehensive policy analysis on social security and parity in the UK. This paper, focusing specifically on Northern Ireland where social security is a devolved responsibility, has explained how devolution of social security has operated in practice and has looked at interpretations of parity, which are often misread in UK literature. It has identified the nature of departures from parity, including administrative breaches of parity and at more marginal parity issues. The radical nature of the welfare reforms in the 2012 Welfare Reform Act has appeared to prompt more debate about parity. As the only devolved parliament with devolved responsibility for social security, government in Northern Ireland theoretically could depart to a more significant extent from policy at Westminster. However, as discussed there are powerful financial disincentives to move from parity which has led to much of the focus of debates being about finding flexibility within the confines of parity. The paper also shows that while the financial implications are important, the political ideology of Northern Ireland ministers and parties is still an influential factor.

12 References Birrell, D. and Heenan, D. (2010) Devolution and Social Security: the anomaly of Northern Ireland, Journal of overty and Social Justice, 18, 3, Browne, J. (2010) The Impact of Tax and Benefit Reform to be introduced in Northern Ireland between 2010 and 2011 and in Northern Ireland. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies Bradshaw, J. (1989) Social Security Parity in Northern Ireland, Belfast: Policy research Institute Citizen s Advice Bureau (2011) Citizen s Advice Response to Welfare Reform Bill, Department for Finance and Personnel (2012) Labour Market Statistical Bulletin June Belfast: DFP Department of Social Development (2010) Proposals for a Pensions Bill Equality Impact Assessment, ( Department for Social Development (2010) Disability Living Allowance, Summary of Statistics. 31 May 2010, Belfast: DSD Department for Work and Pensions (2010a) 21 st Century Welfare, cm London: DWP ( Department for Work and Pensions (2010b) Universal Credit: Welfare that Works, cm 7957 London: DWP ( Department for Work and Pensions (2011) Local Support to Replace Community care Grants and Crisis Loans for Living Expense in England: government response to the call for evidence. London: DWP Dickson, B. (2005) The Legal System of Northern Ireland, Belfast: SLS Publishers Disability Alliance (2011) Welfare Reform Bill 2 nd Alliance Briefing Reading: 9 th March 2011 Disability Evason, E. (2006) Digest of Northern Ireland Law a short guide to social security law in Northern Ireland, Belfast: SLS publications Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (2011) Response to the Department for Social Development s consultation on the Welfare Reform Bill (Northern Ireland) 2011 Equality Impact Assessment. Belfast: ECNI Fahey, T and McLaughlin, E. (1999) Family and State in A.Heath, R.Breen and C.Whelan (eds) Ireland North and South: Perspectives from Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press

13 Fitzpatrick, B. and Burrows, N. (2012) An Examination of the Parity Principles in Welfare and Social Policy, Belfast: Northern Ireland Commissioner for children and Young People Gray, A. M. and Carragher, L (2008) Lone Parents Speaking Out, Belfast: Possibilities Gray, P and McAnulty, U (2011) Is the Private Sector in Northern Ireland a Safe Haven for Housing Tenants? Paper presented at the Housing studies Association Conference, University of York, April Hinds, B (2012) Welfare Reform and Women, paper submitted to Committee for Social Development, Belfast: Women s Ad-hoc Policy Group HM Treasury (2010) Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly, ( Horgan, G and Monteith, M (2012) Welfare Reform: Making Children Visible assessing the impact on children. Belfast: Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People Law Centre (NI) (2011a) DSD: Work Capability Assessment A Call for Evidence: Year 2 Independent Review. Belfast: Law CentreNI( %20Responses/ResponseDSDWCAreview.pdf) Law Centre NI (2011b) Work and Pensions Select Committee Inquiry Proposal to replace DLA with Personal Independence Payment, Belfast: Law Centre NI ( %20Responses/ResponseWPSCreplacingDLA.pdf) Law Centre NI (2011c) Social Security Parity: a note for the Social Development Committee. Belfast: Law Centre Lewsley-Mooney, P (2012) Commissioner for Children speaking at launch of two reports on Welfare Reform. ( MacInnes, T., Aldridge, H.,Parekh,A. and Kenway, P. (2012) Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland. York: JRF McLaughlin, E. (2005) Governance and Social Policy in Northern Ireland ( ): The devolution years and postscript, in M. Powell, K. Clarke and L. Bauld (eds.), Social Policy Review 17, Bristol: Policy Press Murphy, E and Campbell, J (2011) An Introduction to Welfare Reform, NIA Research and Library Service Briefing Paper. Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service

14 Northern Ireland Assembly (2008) The Carer s Allowance Bill 2008, Research Paper 31/08 Northern Ireland Assembly (2012a) Private Member s Motion: Debate on Incapacity Benefit Reassessments, 21 May 2012 Northern Ireland Assembly (2012b) Private Member s Motion: Debate on Welfare Reform, 20 February 2012 ( Business/Official-Report/Reports-11-12/20-February-2012/#a6) Simeon, R. (2003) Free Personal Care: Policy Divergence and Social Citizenship, in R. Hazell (ed.) The State of the Nations 2003, Exeter: Imprint Academic Social Security Advisory Committee (2011) SSAC response to the Universal Credit White Paper ( Wiggan, J. (2012) A Kingdom United? Devolution and welfare reform in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, Policy and Politics, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp