From over at ULTONIA COMMUNICATIONS:
One of the peculiarities of devolution is that it operates subtly differently – both in theory and in practice – in different jurisdictions. One area where this is most obvious is social security, and thus Welfare Reform.
In the UK social security is, in theory, devolved only to Northern Ireland. However, a long-standing principle of “parity” – aimed at guaranteeing the same level of social security and welfare support to all citizens regardless of where in the UK they live – means that any shortfall in funding for social security in NI will be met by the UK Treasury provided NI retains roughly the same social security system. Precisely what this means, however, is open to debate.
Already there are areas of welfare provision which are done slightly differently in NI, usually due to different systems elsewhere – for example, as NI retains rates where the rest of the UK has moved to Council Tax, housing support is necessarily different. In NI, the system is also administered slightly differently, run as it is by the Department of Social Development (DSD) in Belfast rather than the Department of Work and Pensions in London. Although in practice DSD uses many of the same systems (IT, management etc), in some areas practice and outcome are subtly different (for example, DSD has in fact been significantly more successful in tackling fraud).
Welfare Reform would necessarily involve some differences in NI, where areas such as childcare provision and government-sponsored training are markedly different – thus, some of the assumptions behind welfare reform in Great Britain do not necessarily apply to NI. There is a legitimate debate about whether this requires NI to come more into line in areas such as childcare and training, or whether it provides reasonable grounds for a difference in welfare reform policy (still falling within the spirit of ‘parity’ on the grounds it ultimately seeks the same outcome).
For all that, Great Britain’s Welfare Reform Bill achieved Royal Assent on 7 March. “Parity” dictates that roughly the same reforms are necessary in NI, and thus that roughly the same legislation is necessary, and according to all Assembly scrutiny on the subject (most notably in the Social Development Committee), this was due at least to have been published by the end of June. Why wasn’t it?
Ultonia Communications makes great play of understanding not just the structures but also the culture of the devolved institutions, and therein lies the answer. Ultimately the NI Executive is driven by two parties – the DUP and Sinn Fein – and things only happen once they agree. However, as one correspondent puts it: “There is no ‘bank of goodwill’ between the parties“. In other words, decisions can only be made which may be seen to favour on party’s position at the same time as a decision favouring the other party’s position – regardless of the issues involved or even whether they are remotely consequential. Hence, earlier this month, we saw decisions announced on the Maze Regeneration and the Victims’ Commissioner at the same time, with the rest (including welfare reform) relegated to a sideshow – or, specifically, to a trade-off at a later date.
This “culture” does not just impact on NI’s Welfare Reform Bill (which cannot be delayed too long otherwise NI will be left with a huge tab to pick up, likely running into billions, for social security). It will also surely come to impact implementation by the Health Minister of Transforming Your Care, implementation by the Education Minister of the two Education Bills (and broader reforms), and a whole host of other policies. Welfare Reform has been delayed by the lack of a “Bank of Goodwill” - and, in public affairs, it is always worth having contingencies in case the same happens in other areas.
Unless, of course, Ian you acknowledge that the austerity cuts which will impact most on the poor will have a dangerously disproportionate effect on Northern Ireland whose economy is 70 per cent reliant on the public sector, and that the relentless pursuit of Cameron’s agenda here will,not withstanding benefits that may accrue in wealthy parts of England, increase hardship, social division and endanger political progress, in which case the Executive’s collective foot-dragging is to be applauded! Cameron needs to understand how irresponsible and frankly dangerous it is to further impoverish a post conflict region!
Hi Nick, and welcome!
In response, and including some things another correspondent noted on Facebook…
Firstly, this post was about the whats rather than the whethers. NI has to legislate for and implement the same system or bear the entire cost – running to billions – of doing its own thing. Taking billions out of the system would certainly “impoverish a post-conflict region”.
Secondly, while I sympathise with what you say about Cameron, the reforms are designed to lift people out of poverty. The fact is the poorest parts of NI have remained so for generations – conflict or no conflict. The idea that poverty may be tackled by making more and more people dependent on state hand outs (ie taxpayers’ money) – and I very much include people with unnecessary public-funded bureaucratic jobs among those – has demonstrably utterly failed. There needs to be a lot of “carrot” – in education reform, skills focus, rebalancing of the economy towards value-driven jobs – no one seriously disputes there needs to be some “stick” too. On your own terms, reforms designed to empower people to get out of poverty can only be a good thing for NI.
A third point courtesy of my correspondent: “parity” works both ways. If NI is effectively obliged to adopt the same system, London is effectively obliged to pay the same rates everywhere. Parity is our defence against regional rates, arguably.
Ian – first of all I really enjoy your blog – it is really thoughtful and you make your case well.
My argument is not based on wanting to have people on welfare or to have unnecessary public sector workers. It really stems from the fact that our GDP is 70% public sector (from memory the Peoples’ Republic of China is around 50%) This is way out of kilter with wealthy parts of the UK. If we are going to shrink the public sector then there have to be jobs for people to go to, ditto if you remove and or reduce benefits. Turning around an economy like ours requires very serious investment – and that is not, nor will it be forthcoming from our present government. As the eminent economist David Blanchflower said that when he visited Belfast earlier this year UK government policies in the form presently being pursued will inevitably destroy economies in areas with a high dependence on the public sector like Northern Ireland and the North East of England!