Suchergebnisse

Notwithstanding its central place in social security policy-making and in the experiences of those on the receiving end of welfare reforms, cumulative impact is an under interrogated and theorised problem in social welfare scholarship. This paper seeks to address this in two ways. First, it draws on the lessons of the comparatively well-developed literature on cumulative impact in environmental studies to: (i) identify different dimensions of cumulative impact and (ii) best practices in undertaking cumulative impact assessments. Second, it argues that having regard to cumulative impact is not just good policy-making, but is also a legal obligation. To discharge the "Public Sector Equality Duty" under s.149 Equality Act 2010, a public authority needs to have due regard to clear cumulative impacts between measures. In the context of social security policy-making, a failure to undertake enquiries to establish cumulative impacts between polices is likely to breach the PSED. Drawing on examples from the UK Government's Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 throughout, the paper makes the case for both the importance of addressing cumulative impact in policymaking, and the need for greater interrogation by social welfare scholarship.

This paper argues that central governments can avoid blame for cuts to social security by giving local authorities discretionary powers. When making reductions to entitlements, conferring discretion avoids delineating who is affected, allowing for conflicts in policy formation to be deliberately fudged, decisions to be shielded from the gaze of the public and the courts, and responsibility for the impact of budget reductions to be externalised. Using three 'welfare reforms' in the UK as examples – the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, Discretionary Housing Payments, and local welfare assistance schemes – four 'blame avoidance' functions of conferring discretion are proposed.

In common with most decisions of the Supreme Court, the judgment in R. (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKSC 58 tells two stories: a short version and a long version. This article outlines both. The short story is the immediate impact of the decision: the application of the high-bar 'manifestly without reasonable foundation test', a distinction drawn on 'transparent medical need', and the lack of regard given to international obligations under the UNCRPD and the UNCRC. The long story is how this decision fits into the 'cut-and-devolve' approach to welfare reform in the UK, where local authorities are left to mitigate the effects of centrally determined benefit reductions without adequate support. After outlining the basis of the decision and its likely effects, this article argues that the decision does little to square this key structural circle at the heart of the UK government's welfare reform agenda.