This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28158483

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

Version 0 Version 1
European Court of Human Rights challenges UK work schemes High Court challenges UK work schemes
(35 minutes later)
Legislation introduced by ministers after the Court of Appeal ruled a back-to-work scheme was legally flawed has been ruled "incompatible" with the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court has ruled emergency laws underpinning a government back-to-work scheme are "incompatible" with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ruling stems from a case brought by graduate Cait Reilly in 2012. The ruling stems from a case brought by Cait Reilly in 2012, who said being forced to work for free at a Poundland store breached her human rights.
She said being forced to work for free at a Poundland store under a government scheme breached her human rights.
The government brought in new rules in 2013 allowing unpaid work schemes to continue pending further legal appeals.The government brought in new rules in 2013 allowing unpaid work schemes to continue pending further legal appeals.
Ministers said they were "disappointed" by the ruling and would appeal.
Miss Reilly, a 24-year old university graduate, challenged the legality of an unpaid work placement she undertook in 2011.
She said that she was told that if she did not agree to take part in the scheme, which she said involved stacking shelves, she would lose her Jobseeker's Allowance.
The government was forced to pass emergency legislation amending the scheme last year after Court of Appeal ruled that the regulations underpinning it did not comply with existing laws giving the Department for Work and Pensions the power to introduce the programme.
'Minority of cases'
Mrs Justice Lang, sitting at the High Court in London, ruled on Friday that the retrospective legislation interfered with the "right to a fair trial" under Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights.
The Department for Work and Pensions said it was "disappointed" by the ruling and would launch an appeal.
"We disagree with the judgment on the legislation and are disappointed," a spokeswoman said.
"It was discussed, voted on and passed by Parliament. While this applies to only a minority of past cases and does not affect the day to day business of our Jobcentres, we think this is an important point and will appeal."
The back-to-work schemes have been condemned by critics as "slave labour" because they involve work without pay but are seen by supporters as a good way of getting the unemployed back into the world of work.
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling on the regulations last year although the judges also rejected claims that the schemes were "exploitative" and amounted to "forced labour".
Ministers said that the most recent legal judgement had also endorsed this position.
"We're pleased the Court recognised that if claimants do not play by the rules and meet their conditions to do all they can to look for work and get a job, we can stop their benefits," the spokeswoman added.