In a major blow to the UK government’s “work for your benefit” scheme, the Court of Appeal ruled on 13 February that the regulations governing most of the “back to work” schemes were unlawful.
The case was brought by University graduate Cait Reilly, who stacked shelves in Poundland for two weeks, and HGV driver Jamie Wilson, whos Jobseeker’s Allowance was stopped for six months after he refused to participate in a scheme which required him to work 30 hours a week for six months for free. They applicants were represented by Public Interest Lawyers based in Birmingham and both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.
The Court struck down the regulations because they failed to provide any detail about the various “back to work schemes” and were not specific enough. The Court did not rule that the scheme itself was unlawful but said that the regulations made by the relevant Minister went beyond what parliament had authorised.
Judge Burnton said:
“The loss of jobseeker’s allowance may result in considerable personal hardship and it is not surprising that parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed”.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs claimed that the UK authorities may have to pay compensation to people who had their social welfare benefits stopped because they refused to take part in the schemes. However, the UK Government said there would be no compensation and pointed out that the Appeal Court had held that requiring jobseekers to participate in the scheme did not breach human rights.
The UK government is seeking leave to appeal and has tabled emergency regulations in Parliament allowing its welfare-to-work schemes to continue unchanged in the interim.
Click here to read the judgment in full
Click here to read an article from the Public Interest Lawyers
Click here to read an article from the Spectator and here for a BBC news article and here for a Guardian news article.