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.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/30/poundland-case-government-defeated-work-schemes-duncan-smith

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Poundland case: government defeated again over back-to-work schemes Poundland case: government defeated again over back-to-work schemes
(35 minutes later)
The government's "back to work" schemes at the centre of the high-profile Poundland case were legally flawed, the UK's highest court has ruled.The government's "back to work" schemes at the centre of the high-profile Poundland case were legally flawed, the UK's highest court has ruled.
The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, failed in an attempt at the supreme court to overturn an earlier ruling that regulations from 2011 underpinning the schemes were invalid. Cait Reilly won her long-running case against the Department for Work and Pensions in the supreme court after she first disputed the legality of the government's employment schemes in January 2012.
Five supreme court justices upheld a court of appeal decision that went against the government in February. The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, failed in his attempt to overturn an earlier ruling, in the court of appeal, that regulations from 2011 that supposedly gave the schemes their legal footing were invalid.
The schemes were condemned by critics as "slave labour" because they involved work without pay and cuts in jobseeker's allowance for those who failed to comply with the rules. But the supreme court ruled that regulations did not constitute forced or compulsory labour. Five supreme court justices upheld a decision by the court of appeal that went against the government in February.
Those in favour had welcomed the schemes as an effective way of getting people into employment. While the supreme court stopped short of ruling that the regulations constituted forced or compulsory labour, it decided that it was unlawful for the government to fail to supply parliament and hundreds of thousands of jobseekers with proper information about the so-called "workfare" schemes they were forced to undertake at pain of losing jobseeker's allowance.
At the appeal court, Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton unanimously agreed that the 2011 "work for your benefits" regulations failed to give the unemployed enough information, especially about the sanctions for refusing jobs under the schemes. The judges ruled that the secretary of state had failed to provide sufficient information about the schemes to Reilly and her co-claimant, Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed lorry driver.
The appeal ruling was a victory for Cait Reilly, 24, a university graduate from Birmingham, who challenged having to work for free at a local Poundland discount store. The judgment would have resulted in the government's having to refund £130m to about 250,000 unemployed people for unlawful sanctioning, had it not been for emergency retroactive legislation introduced by Duncan Smith in the spring.
More details soon … After the introduction of that emergency law, the solicitors Public Interest Lawyers, who represent Reilly and Wilson, lodged a judicial review accusing Duncan Smith of conspiring to undermine basic human rights by enacting the retroactive legislation.
They say they will continue to pursue that judicial review after their success in the supreme court.
In a statement outside the court, the lawyer Tessa Gregory said: "We are delighted that the supreme court has dismissed the government' appeal and confirmed that the regulations under which most of the 'back to work' schemes were initially created were unlawful.
"The court upheld the findings that Iain Duncan Smith acted beyond the powers given to him by parliament by failing to provide any detail about the various schemes in the regulations and that, in any event, the required notice provisions had not been complied with."
After the ruling Reilly, who works for the supermarket Morrisons, said she felt very proud, two years after she first contacted the Guardian about working in the discount retailer Poundland unpaid for a number of weeks.
"I feel very proud that people seemed to have realised there was an injustice going on, and that we have carried it on and reached the verdict today," she said.
"It's quite unbelievable. I'm still getting my head around it. But it is a great result."
Reilly, a geology graduate from Birmingham, said the secretary of state needed to treat unemployed people with respect.
"Jobseekers … are just trying to make something of themselves, like anyone else," she said. "We're not job snobs."
She added that for job-seeking to be made harder by poor DWP regulations, was a terrible irony. "He [Duncan Smith] needs to realise they need to help us, not punish us," she said.
In a statement after the ruling, the DWP said: " We are disappointed that the supreme court agreed with the court of appeal that the regulations … did not sufficiently describe the relevant schemes.
"In any event, we have already dealt with these point through the passing of further primary legislation in March this year. While that primary legislation is subject to judicial review proceedings, we are very confident of its validity. It received support from all sides in the House and we will defend it robustly."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.