On 30 October the UK Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to the government’s welfare to work scheme. Geology graduate, Caitlin Reilly, challenged the scheme after she was told she had to work for free for retail giant Poundland or risk losing her Job Seeker’s Allowance payment. In order to complete this work experience she had to give up a volunteering position in a museum which was more relevant to her qualifications. Ms Reilly was joined in the action by Jamie Wilson, a heavy goods vehicle driver, whose benefits were deducted after he refused to participate in a scheme requiring him to clean furniture without pay for 30 hours per week for six months.
The Court of Appeal had held that the regulations under which most “Back to Work” schemes were created were unlawful and must be quashed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had been correct to hold that the regulations must be quashed as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Ian Duncan Smith, had gone beyond the powers given to him by parliament by failing to provide sufficient details in the regulations about the “Back to Work” schemes. The Supreme Court held that the government is under a duty as a matter of fairness to provide jobseekers with enough information about the relevant scheme to enable them to make informed and meaningful representations about the scheme before a decision is made.
The Supreme Court however dismissed an argument that the “Back to Work” scheme constituted forced labour under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment’s actual impact is complicated by the fact that the government had rushed through legislation in March 2013 which effectively overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and validated the regulations.
The jobseekers were represented by Public Interest Lawyers, a UK law firm specialising in human rights and administrative law. Head of Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner said, “Once again the Department for Work and Pension’s flagship Back to Work schemes have been found wanting. Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court is of huge constitutional and practical significance. My firm will now get on with challenging, by judicial review, the retrospective legislation which was shamefully rushed through Parliament by Iain Duncan Smith in March of this year.” The law firm is also considering whether to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights on the Article 4 ECHR point.
Click here to read the decision in full.
Click here to read a press release from Public Interest Lawyers.