DWP's Back-To-Work Scheme Ruled Unlawful!

ebsay

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928

The government's back-to-work schemes have suffered a setback after Appeal Court judges agreed with a university graduate's claim that unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

Cait Reilly, 24, claimed that requiring her to work for nothing at a Poundland store breached laws on forced labour.

Judges quashed the regulations underpinning the work schemes.

Solicitors say the ruling means "all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits".

The judges' decision effectively prevents the government continuing with the programme in its current form.

However, ministers are bringing new, more precise, regulations to Parliament later in the day to allow these schemes to carry on.

Meanwhile, the government said it was seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ebsay

Now we need those 3 Judges to rule ATOS's WCA's illegal as well!!

FTW

ebsay wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928

The government's back-to-work schemes have suffered a setback after Appeal Court judges agreed with a university graduate's claim that unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

Cait Reilly, 24, claimed that requiring her to work for nothing at a Poundland store breached laws on forced labour.

Judges quashed the regulations underpinning the work schemes.

Solicitors say the ruling means "all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits".

The judges' decision effectively prevents the government continuing with the programme in its current form.

However, ministers are bringing new, more precise, regulations to Parliament later in the day to allow these schemes to carry on.

Meanwhile, the government said it was seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Good - nice to hear of sensible judges for a change.

But typical of the DWP to display breath-taking arrogance with this quote here :-

"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," said a spokesman for the DWP.

Just be careful that judges don't over-rule that range of options as well.

FTW

ebsay wrote: »

Now we need those 3 Judges to rule ATOS's WCA's illegal as well!!

Absolutely. If they did, then I'd expect we'd get some more priceless underside-of-carpet-sweeping from the DWP.

Brassedoff

ebsay wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928.

However, DWP ministers Bill Sikes and Fagin said from their Saffron Hill offices that they are bringing new, more precise, regulations to Parliament later in the day to allow these schemes to carry on.
.

Nice to know the government can bring about revised laws within 24 hours to deal with this issue, yet it takes years to bring in disability and equality laws!

I suppose the only way to thwart this unfair legislation would be do go down the ECHR and the European Court? The convention on Human rights is clear, look at Article 4

Article 4 - servitude
Main article: Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 4 prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labour but exempts labour:

• done as a normal part of imprisonment

,

• in the form of compulsory military service or work done as an alternative by conscientious objectors,

• required to be done during a state of emergency, and
• considered to be a part of a person's normal "civic obligations."

Free work, thanks to the government forgetting about the 1833 Slaverry Abolition Act

rogerblack

Brassedoff wrote: »

The convention on Human rights is clear, look at Article 4

Read the original decision quoted (at least in some of the threads, I've lost track.
It was quite clear they agreed article 4 did not apply, in the case of properly constituted laws that had the same stated aim as the work program - but were implemented correctly.