Jobseeker's Allowance and Slavery

Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that the government’s back to work schemes are unlawful.

The court held that it was unlawful to force Cait Reilly, a 24-year-old geology graduate, to work unpaid in Poundland for two weeks as part of the ‘sector-based work academy’ programme. It also held that it was unlawful to force Jamie Wilson, 40, to work unpaid for six months as part of the ‘Community Action Programme’. Both individuals had been told that failure to take part in the programmes would lead to their benefit being stopped.

Despite all the commotion regarding this case, with suggestions of slavery and forced labour, the reality is that the decision was made on a very narrow point. Indeed the court was quite clear that, generally, those claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance ‘should be required to participate in arrangements which may improve their prospects of obtaining remunerative employment’. It said that such arrangements would not breach Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits slavery and forced labour.

So if forcing jobseekers to take part in certain schemes is not slavery what exactly made it unlawful in this case? Simply put, the schemes were not set out in the way required by law, so they were unlawful. The schemes were apparently operated under the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011. The Jobseeker’s Act 1995 (section 17A) provides that regulations can make rules for requiring people to participate in back to work schemes of a ‘prescribed description’. The 2011 Regulations simply stated that there was Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme and that it was a scheme under the 1995 Act. The regulations did not give any other description of the scheme nor the schemes that Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson were told to participate in. As the schemes were not properly described they were not of a ‘prescribed description’ as required by the 1995 Act. They were therefore unlawful and were quashed (invalidated) by the court.

The government intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. In the meantime it has laid new, more precise, regulations before Parliament so that the schemes can continue.

The judgment can be read here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/66.html