This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/12/poundland-ruling-government-work-schemes
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Poundland ruling 'blows big hole' through government work schemes | Poundland ruling 'blows big hole' through government work schemes |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The government's employment strategy is in disarray after judges declared that almost all "work-for-your-benefit" schemes were unlawful due to a lack of basic information given to the unemployed. | The government's employment strategy is in disarray after judges declared that almost all "work-for-your-benefit" schemes were unlawful due to a lack of basic information given to the unemployed. |
| A three-judge panel at the royal courts of justice ruled that the secretary of state for work and pensions had acted unlawfully by not telling the unemployed enough about the penalties they faced and their rights to appeal against being made to work unpaid for, in some cases, hundreds of hours. | A three-judge panel at the royal courts of justice ruled that the secretary of state for work and pensions had acted unlawfully by not telling the unemployed enough about the penalties they faced and their rights to appeal against being made to work unpaid for, in some cases, hundreds of hours. |
| The judges agreed with university graduate Cait Reilly's claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful. Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and 41-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed after the court found the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had exceeded its powers. | |
| The court ruling means tens of thousands of unemployed people who have had benefits docked for not properly taking part in schemes such as Work Experience and the Work Programme are entitled to a rebate. However the DWP said it would not be paying out money until all legal avenues had been exhausted. | The court ruling means tens of thousands of unemployed people who have had benefits docked for not properly taking part in schemes such as Work Experience and the Work Programme are entitled to a rebate. However the DWP said it would not be paying out money until all legal avenues had been exhausted. |
| "We have no intention of giving back money to anyone who has had their benefits removed because they refused to take getting into work seriously. We are currently considering a range of options to ensure this does not happen," A DWP spokesperson said. | "We have no intention of giving back money to anyone who has had their benefits removed because they refused to take getting into work seriously. We are currently considering a range of options to ensure this does not happen," A DWP spokesperson said. |
| On Tuesday morning the DWP issued fresh regulations that would abide by the new judgment. The court refused the government permission to appeal but the DWP said it would take the matter to the supreme court. | On Tuesday morning the DWP issued fresh regulations that would abide by the new judgment. The court refused the government permission to appeal but the DWP said it would take the matter to the supreme court. |
| Speaking just after the judgment was delivered, Reilly said she was "overjoyed and relieved". "Obviously I don't want to get rid of the government helping people get into work because that's what we want, that's what we've been fighting for really. But we wanted to get rid of the aspect of punishment about it, where people are forced into things that they necessarily don't need to be doing. [That] has just been great," she said. | Speaking just after the judgment was delivered, Reilly said she was "overjoyed and relieved". "Obviously I don't want to get rid of the government helping people get into work because that's what we want, that's what we've been fighting for really. But we wanted to get rid of the aspect of punishment about it, where people are forced into things that they necessarily don't need to be doing. [That] has just been great," she said. |
| The geology graduate approached the Guardian with her story of forced labour in Poundland in November 2011. She said her worst moments during the legal fight against the DWP came when she was lambasted in the media by rightwing commentators who questioned her worth ethic and labelled her a scrounger. | |
| "All the really negative press where they've … focused on me being a scrounger or workshy or some crazy human rights campaigner. It's been tough. It's not something I'm used to … But then it all makes up for it when you see all the public support, that's been fantastic and got me through a lot of it," she said. | "All the really negative press where they've … focused on me being a scrounger or workshy or some crazy human rights campaigner. It's been tough. It's not something I'm used to … But then it all makes up for it when you see all the public support, that's been fantastic and got me through a lot of it," she said. |
| Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for Reilly and Wilson, argued two main points during successive judicial review hearings. The first was that working for your benefits was a form of forced labour under the Human Rights Act. Secondly, the lawyers said, the DWP had not detailed in law enough information about the various schemes and programmes to give the unemployed their basic legal rights. | Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for Reilly and Wilson, argued two main points during successive judicial review hearings. The first was that working for your benefits was a form of forced labour under the Human Rights Act. Secondly, the lawyers said, the DWP had not detailed in law enough information about the various schemes and programmes to give the unemployed their basic legal rights. |
| While striking down the human rights argument, the panel of Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burton ruled unanimously that the secretary of state, Iain Duncan Smith had exceeded his powers by not laying out enough detail in front of parliament about programmes that hundreds of thousands of unemployed people were made to take part in. | While striking down the human rights argument, the panel of Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burton ruled unanimously that the secretary of state, Iain Duncan Smith had exceeded his powers by not laying out enough detail in front of parliament about programmes that hundreds of thousands of unemployed people were made to take part in. |
| In the ruling, Burton said: "I emphasise that this case is not about the social, economic, political or other merits of the Employment, Skills and Enterprise scheme. | In the ruling, Burton said: "I emphasise that this case is not about the social, economic, political or other merits of the Employment, Skills and Enterprise scheme. |
| He said parliament was "entitled to encourage participation in such schemes by imposing sanctions, in terms of loss of jobseeker's allowance, on those who without good cause refuse to participate in a suitable scheme". | He said parliament was "entitled to encourage participation in such schemes by imposing sanctions, in terms of loss of jobseeker's allowance, on those who without good cause refuse to participate in a suitable scheme". |
| "However," he said, "any scheme must be such as has been authorised by parliament. There is a constitutional issue involved. 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." | "However," he said, "any scheme must be such as has been authorised by parliament. There is a constitutional issue involved. 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." |
| Burton with his fellow judges ruled that under section 17a of the 1995 Jobseekers Act as amended in 2009, with regards to work-for-your-benefit schemes the secretary of state could not do as he saw fit, and had to lay the details of the those programmes before parliament. | Burton with his fellow judges ruled that under section 17a of the 1995 Jobseekers Act as amended in 2009, with regards to work-for-your-benefit schemes the secretary of state could not do as he saw fit, and had to lay the details of the those programmes before parliament. |
| Since the introduction of work-for-your-benefit schemes after the coalition took power in May 2010, the unemployed have fought long battles under freedom of information law to obtain crucial details about how and why they can be sanctioned for not taking part, and if they can or cannot be made to work unpaid for up to six months. | Since the introduction of work-for-your-benefit schemes after the coalition took power in May 2010, the unemployed have fought long battles under freedom of information law to obtain crucial details about how and why they can be sanctioned for not taking part, and if they can or cannot be made to work unpaid for up to six months. |
| Following the Reilly ruling all those who are on similar schemes can leave their placements if they choose and cannot be sanctioned if they do so, lawyers said. However, one scheme, Mandatory Work Activity, which was introduced under separate legislation, is not directly affected by the ruling. | |
| In a statement after the ruling, Wilson, who was left destitute after the DWP stripped him of all benefits when he refused to work for free for six months under the trial Community Action Programme (CAP) said: "I am really pleased that the court has found in our favour. | In a statement after the ruling, Wilson, who was left destitute after the DWP stripped him of all benefits when he refused to work for free for six months under the trial Community Action Programme (CAP) said: "I am really pleased that the court has found in our favour. |
| "I refused to participate in CAP because I objected to being made to clean furniture for 30 hours a week for six months when I knew it wouldn't help me find employment. I was given next to no information about the programme. I was told simply that I had to do whatever the DWP's private contractor instructed me to do and that if I didn't I may lose my benefits. | "I refused to participate in CAP because I objected to being made to clean furniture for 30 hours a week for six months when I knew it wouldn't help me find employment. I was given next to no information about the programme. I was told simply that I had to do whatever the DWP's private contractor instructed me to do and that if I didn't I may lose my benefits. |
| "Being without jobseeker's allowance was very difficult for me but I don't regret taking a stand as the CAP is a poorly thought out and poorly implemented scheme, which, even according to the DWP's own statistics, is not helping anyone get people back to work. | |
| "I am now participating in the Work Programme but it doesn't involve me working for free … I will continue to attend these sessions with my adviser regardless of whether or not I am required to attend because I want to find a job and the sessions are very helpful." | "I am now participating in the Work Programme but it doesn't involve me working for free … I will continue to attend these sessions with my adviser regardless of whether or not I am required to attend because I want to find a job and the sessions are very helpful." |
| Joanna Long, a member of campaigning group Boycott Workfare, said: "Today's ruling is a victory of the people against a government which thought it could compel unemployed and sick people to work without pay, backed by a vicious regime of sanctions which made the poorest far poorer. | |
| "We are confident this spells the end for workfare in the UK. The only remaining scheme is wobbling due to public pressure on the charities profiting from free labour. If Iain Duncan Smith attempts to legislate for workfare in future, he should know that we will not allow it. Tens of businesses and charities are already boycotting his schemes, and today's ruling shows that workfare is not only wrong, it is also unlawful." | "We are confident this spells the end for workfare in the UK. The only remaining scheme is wobbling due to public pressure on the charities profiting from free labour. If Iain Duncan Smith attempts to legislate for workfare in future, he should know that we will not allow it. Tens of businesses and charities are already boycotting his schemes, and today's ruling shows that workfare is not only wrong, it is also unlawful." |
| The TUC general secretary, Frances O'Grady, said: "This blows a big hole through the government's workfare policies. | The TUC general secretary, Frances O'Grady, said: "This blows a big hole through the government's workfare policies. |
| "Of course voluntary work experience can help the jobless, and it is right to expect the unemployed to seek work. But it is pointless to force people to work for no pay in jobs that do nothing to help them while putting others at risk of unemployment. This policy is about blaming the jobless, not helping them. Ministers should now abandon this misguided approach, and instead guarantee real jobs for the long-term unemployed, especially the young." | "Of course voluntary work experience can help the jobless, and it is right to expect the unemployed to seek work. But it is pointless to force people to work for no pay in jobs that do nothing to help them while putting others at risk of unemployment. This policy is about blaming the jobless, not helping them. Ministers should now abandon this misguided approach, and instead guarantee real jobs for the long-term unemployed, especially the young." |
| London assembly member Jenny Jones called on the mayor of London to drop the benefit sanctions in his mandatory work experience pilot. | London assembly member Jenny Jones called on the mayor of London to drop the benefit sanctions in his mandatory work experience pilot. |
| Responding to the court ruling, the minister for employment, Mark Hoban, said: "The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It's ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes. | Responding to the court ruling, the minister for employment, Mark Hoban, said: "The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It's ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes. |
| "We are, however, disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on our regulations. There needed to be flexibility so we could give people the right support to meet their needs and get them into a job. We do not agree with the court's judgment and are seeking permission to appeal, but new regulations will be tabled to avoid any uncertainty. | "We are, however, disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on our regulations. There needed to be flexibility so we could give people the right support to meet their needs and get them into a job. We do not agree with the court's judgment and are seeking permission to appeal, but new regulations will be tabled to avoid any uncertainty. |
| "Ultimately the judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into work seriously if they want to claim benefits." | "Ultimately the judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into work seriously if they want to claim benefits." |