Social rights, child rights, discrimination and devolution: untangling the web

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article examines judicial reviews of two areas of social security policy and practice in the UK – the household benefit cap and the restriction of bereavement benefits to bereaved spouses and civil partners. While each case ostensibly concerned discrimination against claimants, in practice much of the legal argument centred on the impact on claimants’ children. The judiciary is revealed to be deeply divided on the lawfulness of the acknowledged discrimination. The article considers what lessons can be drawn about the relative weight that ought to be afforded to claimants’ property rights, the best interests of affected children, anti-discrimination provisions and the state’s stated policy imperatives of cost control and administrative convenience. Insights are also sought into whether devolutionary differences can be identified between the approaches of courts in London and Belfast.
LanguageEnglish
Pages3-20
JournalJournal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume40
Issue number1
Early online date6 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 6 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

social rights
children's rights
decentralization
discrimination
security policy
affirmative action
judiciary
right of ownership
social security
spouse
costs

Keywords

  • Social security
  • Human Rights
  • European Convention on Human Rights
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child
  • Devolution
  • Social rights
  • Welfare state

Cite this

@article{526bae3e5aee4cf183f995b78c6ee19c,
title = "Social rights, child rights, discrimination and devolution: untangling the web",
abstract = "This article examines judicial reviews of two areas of social security policy and practice in the UK – the household benefit cap and the restriction of bereavement benefits to bereaved spouses and civil partners. While each case ostensibly concerned discrimination against claimants, in practice much of the legal argument centred on the impact on claimants’ children. The judiciary is revealed to be deeply divided on the lawfulness of the acknowledged discrimination. The article considers what lessons can be drawn about the relative weight that ought to be afforded to claimants’ property rights, the best interests of affected children, anti-discrimination provisions and the state’s stated policy imperatives of cost control and administrative convenience. Insights are also sought into whether devolutionary differences can be identified between the approaches of courts in London and Belfast.",
keywords = "Social security, Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Devolution, Social rights, Welfare state",
author = "Mark Simpson",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1080/09649069.2018.1414201",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "3--20",
journal = "Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law",
issn = "0964-9069",
number = "1",

}

Social rights, child rights, discrimination and devolution: untangling the web. / Simpson, Mark.

In: Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol. 40, No. 1, 06.03.2018, p. 3-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social rights, child rights, discrimination and devolution: untangling the web

AU - Simpson, Mark

PY - 2018/3/6

Y1 - 2018/3/6

N2 - This article examines judicial reviews of two areas of social security policy and practice in the UK – the household benefit cap and the restriction of bereavement benefits to bereaved spouses and civil partners. While each case ostensibly concerned discrimination against claimants, in practice much of the legal argument centred on the impact on claimants’ children. The judiciary is revealed to be deeply divided on the lawfulness of the acknowledged discrimination. The article considers what lessons can be drawn about the relative weight that ought to be afforded to claimants’ property rights, the best interests of affected children, anti-discrimination provisions and the state’s stated policy imperatives of cost control and administrative convenience. Insights are also sought into whether devolutionary differences can be identified between the approaches of courts in London and Belfast.

AB - This article examines judicial reviews of two areas of social security policy and practice in the UK – the household benefit cap and the restriction of bereavement benefits to bereaved spouses and civil partners. While each case ostensibly concerned discrimination against claimants, in practice much of the legal argument centred on the impact on claimants’ children. The judiciary is revealed to be deeply divided on the lawfulness of the acknowledged discrimination. The article considers what lessons can be drawn about the relative weight that ought to be afforded to claimants’ property rights, the best interests of affected children, anti-discrimination provisions and the state’s stated policy imperatives of cost control and administrative convenience. Insights are also sought into whether devolutionary differences can be identified between the approaches of courts in London and Belfast.

KW - Social security

KW - Human Rights

KW - European Convention on Human Rights

KW - Convention on the Rights of the Child

KW - Devolution

KW - Social rights

KW - Welfare state

U2 - 10.1080/09649069.2018.1414201

DO - 10.1080/09649069.2018.1414201

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 3

EP - 20

JO - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

T2 - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

JF - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

SN - 0964-9069

IS - 1

ER -