The Department of Work and Pensions has said it is “business as usual” for its employment schemes, as the Supreme Court rules today that the regulations underpinning the schemes are invalid.
The original case had been brought by Birmingham University graduate Cait Reilly, who argued that government back-to-work schemes, making her work at high-street discount store Poundland for free, breached laws on force labour and went against her human rights. Reilly, a museum volunteer, brought the case to the Court of Appeal back in February.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the government’s schemes were not forced labour, but said that the schemes were “legally flawed”. The government challenged this at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has today ruled that government schemes requiring individuals to work for nothing were not slave labour.
But the ruling, involving graduate Cait Reilly and the Department for Work and Pensions, also stated that regulations underpinning the schemes were invalid.
Responding to today’s ruling, Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith said: “We are very pleased that the Supreme Court today unanimously upheld our right to require those claiming jobseeker’s allowance to take part in programmes which will help get them into work.
"We have always said that it was ridiculous to claim that our schemes amounted to forced labour, and yet again we have won this argument.
"Ultimately this judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into work seriously if they want to claim benefits.”
A spokesman from the Department of Work and Pensions has said that nothing will change in the running of their employment schemes as a result of this judgement, adding that it will be “business as usual”.
He said that the regulations deemed invalid by the Supreme Court were quashed back in March. New rules were brought in to allow the unpaid schemes to continue pending the outcome of the appeal.
Paul Shiner, head of Public Interest Lawyers, the firm who represented Reilly, 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 (pictured) in March of this year.”
Reilly has said today: “I am really pleased with today’s judgment which I hope will serve to improve the current system and assist jobseekers who have been unfairly stripped of their benefits. I brought these proceedings because I knew that there was something wrong when I was stopped from doing voluntary work in a local museum and instead forced to work for Poundland for free.
“It must be time for the Government to rethink its strategy and actually do something constructive to help lift people out of unemployment and poverty.”
A spokesman from the Supreme Court has said that, in effect, both Reilly’s lawyers and the Department for Work and Pensions are right to claim a victory from this judgement. However he stated that the most important outcome was the Court’s ruling that the scheme did not result in forced labour, adding that Reilly’s victory was purely academic.
Commenting on today's ruling, Lucy Rhodes, a trainee solicitor from Bates Wells Braithwaite, said: "“The Supreme Court’s ruling has upheld the Court of Appeal’s findings that the government’s regulations underpinning the work schemes were invalid for failing to prescribe the publishing of sufficient information on the schemes.
"This is a lesson for the government in ensuring that secondary legislation is drafted in a way which complies with primary legislation.
“Although this decision may be portrayed as a setback for the government, in reality, the government, having made the necessary amendments to the regulations, can continue to operate mandatory work schemes.”.
