Court of Appeals rules Govt. "back-to-work" scheme unlawful
Solicitor Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented the duo, said: "This judgment sends Iain Duncan Smith back to the drawing board to make fresh regulations which are fair and comply with the court's ruling.
"Until that time nobody can be lawfully forced to participate in schemes affected such as the Work Programme and the Community Action Programme.
"All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them."
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
superb
David Cameron, the PM who brought back slavery :')
What are the *actual* rules around this. The article is confusing.
It seems she received guidance/was told by the jobcentre that if she did not take the job at Poundland she would lose her benefits, but in her quote she says "later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory."
That leads me to believe that taking the unpaid was never actually compulsory.
well to summarize : your lot lost and you're a fucking helmet
REOPEN THE CASE
As in, was it just that she was given bad advice, or that it actually is the case that if she didn't do the work she'd lose her benefits?
sounds like she was lied to by a representative of this Government
but that couldn't be, right?
I think she would have had to agree to it/sign up for it
but I imagine whoever was advising her pressured into it or mislead her?
from what i gather
its that the threat of stripping benefits from those who don't do their placements is/was illegal and those who had their benefits removed are entitled to claim them back
whether the official rules said that the placements were compulsory or not it seems as if the system has been implemented in such a way that makes it so and that courts don't like the idea of 'forced' labour
that's actually part of the argument put by the appellants
"On behalf of our clients, Public Interest Lawyers, will argue that:
The Regulations fail to provide any description of the schemes to which people like our client can be subjected. This is contrary to statute;
The Government has failed to publish any policies setting out the limits of the schemes;
The schemes are contrary to the prohibition on forced labour under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
The six month sanction imposed on Jamie Wilson was unlawful as Jamie had not, as is required by law, been provided with basic information related to the consequences of failing to participate and/or what he could be asked to do under the scheme."
i.e. the failure to set out this basic information about the consequences of not fulfilling the requirements of the scheme made the regulations unlawful.
The semantics around the whole thing are a nightmare, I don't think anyone is really sure of what's been going on:
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1982
'Don't trust the source', etc.
wah!
I want to work in a museum, not a shop!
wah!
Is it still work if it isn't paid?
no I guess if it was real work
then the museum would have paid her
There's a world of difference between volunteering and doing unpaid work with no way of quitting.
not least that for a graduate of her nature
volunteering in a museum would be of about a billion times more benefit for her than working in poundland.
well according to that article
she now works in a supermarket, so I'm not so sure about that
Yes, she works there part-time.
and another article says she had already worked in retail before the job centre made her do "work experience" at Poundland. So yes, volunteering in a museum would be of about a billion times more benefit.
yes
THIS MICROPHONE TURNS SOUND INTO ELECTRICITY!
It's only a partial victory
seems from what I've read that it's more about technicalities in the information provided and not the principal of making people work on these schemes.
hmm
but isn't the information intentionally misleading in order to be technically deniable on accusations of forced labour ?
thus a technical victory proves also to be a knockout
According to these campaigners 'Mandatory Work Activity' is unaffected:
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2020
i see
yes I imagine they had a press release at the ready which indicates they succeeded on human rights grounds
which is not the case. It's no more technical/technicality-centred than pretty much any judicial review (which is all about procedure).
Well yeah...
the key thing for me though is that the government are still full steam ahead, just with new rules that don't fall foul of the same bits of law that the previous set did. http://dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2013/feb-2013/dwp022-13.shtml
yep
everyone's getting a bit overexcited.
so, wait
no one is going to get any benefits back and Poundland & Tesco are still going to get taxpayer-subsidised free forced-labour?
My reading of it is that
people will get benefits back if they've been penalised but taxpayer subsidised labour will almost certainly continue
ffs
why aren't the Taxpayer's Alliance complaining about this then?
they're a Tory stooge group with a fancy name?
indeed
if you want to be excited about that
This has been reported by some people as a 'win' in terms of the moral argument about work schemes. It isn't so people shouldn't be excited about proving the government wrong.
Tesco and Poundland might well still get 'taxpayer-subsidised free forced labour'.
if i was unemployed and wanted to work at tesco
would i be turned away because they don't need any new staff because they have dolefolk doing the job for nowt ?
I don't know enough about Tesco's business model
Not really for courts to make decisions about what's better:
getting more people employed v spending less on unemployment related benefits
yes I see
the court stated "There is an important public interest in getting people back to work [and] a major saving in not having to pay JSA"
which in and of itself is true
difficult to see how the reality of the programme relates to the court's statement though
i am disappoint
Let's take a walk down memory lane
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4309543
Sadly CG's posts as Masculinity have been wiped, but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
Phew
When I lose this job I really cant be arsed working for a while. So this is actually a relief
Laura Kuenssberg ?@ITVLauraK
Judges say govt is entitled to run welfare to work scheme AND impose sanctions - but rules drawn up wrongly
only illegal on a technicality
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/workfare-ruled-illegal-only-narrow-terms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
anyone else feel sick to the stomach by this whole scheme?
I mean not only making people work for free, but making them work for free for big, profitable corporations (poundland, tesco, etc...).
Why aren't they given work experience in public services? libraries, hospitals, etc...? Where its actually needed and doesn't line corporate pockets?
and doesn't line corporate pockets
in many hospitals, they would be doing exactly that.
and I were a public servant working in a local authority library, for example, I'd be a bit miffed if someone came in to do my job for free making me redundant.
that is happening to libraries
i was a lot miffed and then i left my job
I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea in principal
but yeah, the way it's being done seems pretty off
it's a terrible idea in principle
and totally counterproductive
It can't be any less productive than paying people to watch Jeremy Kyle all afternoon.
well, the thing is it actually IS!
It's a bizzare scheme....
Seems to me that there's work to be done in these companies, so why not get them to pay a wage and actually employ people, giving them... y'know... a job.
It's madness
if there's a job there then pay them for it, it's illegal not to pay someone minimum wage.
Also if someone on jobseekers had gone and found a volunteer/unpaid position themseleves that might actally help their career and it was over 16hrs a week they would have their benefits stopped as they are classed as not avalible for work. But the government puts them in an unneeded (and it must be unneeded as otherwise surely the company would hire them as an employee) possition then the same logic of not being avalible for work somehow doesn't apply.
It is happening in volunteer-run libraries:
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/lewisham-library-volunteers-workfare-scheme.html
But volunteer-run libraries are controversial enough as it is - local authorities cutting back the service, making redundancies, and letting people take up the slack on their own.
People have been raving about Friern Barnet library which has supposedly been 'saved' after squatters moved in to the building the council were planning to sell, and started an ad hoc book lending service. Now the council has agreed volunteers can run it. It's not really been saved though, when the council have rid themselves of library - but can still claim they've kept it open.
Everyone locally knows the council lost that battle.
I agree with you, but from the point of view of someone living in Friern Barnet, they've at least still got *a* library service, which is almost certainly better than not having anything (the only other option on the table). Ridiculous that it's come to that, particularly with all the waste in Barnet over the last 7 or 8 years, but given that Cllr Robert Rams was until last month still minded to force out the squatters and sell the building it's not surprising that it's being seen as a victory of sorts.
Barnet is an absolute clusterfuck of a council.
True, and that's the issue with volunteer libraries -
obviously, they're better than NO service, and you have to commend the efforts of the volunteers, but the service should never be lost in the first place. And there are plenty of places where the service is being cut and the local community won't be able to take up the slack. Newcastle is planning to close 10 of 18 libraries, Liverpool 10 of 19. Are they still providing 'a comprehensive and efficient' service as the law demands they do? Will the government possibly intervene? No and no. It's a cluster fuck.
(Sorry, I do a lot of work on libraries and I'm becoming increasingly mouth-frothing about it).
No need to apologise
apology accepted
Labour vote in favour of legislation to over-rule Court's decision,
ensuring no payout to workfare participants is required.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/19/labour-rush-benefit-rebates-poundland
abstention is not a vote in favour
but still
what a shower of cunts
when is the vote?
actually don't understand why Labour aren't opposing this
and why there isn't more general disquiet about it within the coalition too
anyone want to shed some light?
no?
Sorry, I was eating my lunch.
The impression that I get is that they want to cut a deal with the Tories where they don't block the bill and in return they get an independent review of Workfare – but I honestly don't know why they can't oppose it *and* call for a review at the same time. Here's Liam Byrne's statement: http://labourlist.org/2013/03/our-young-people-need-a-real-chance-to-work-in-a-real-job-paying-a-real-wage/
As for disquiet among the coalition, I wouldn't wait too long for Lib Dems to start speaking out against regressive Tory policies.
I suspect it's because they know we can't afford it.
And no one will know this better than Liam "there's no money left" Byrne.
The problem with this payout is that it would effectively be 'dead' money. It won't in itself be a major boost to the economy, and wouldn't provide a greater economic return through knock-on effects (in a way that, say, putting money into house building does).
So essentially they'd just be giving away money they (or we) don't have and money from which they will see no (or very miniscule) return. The days of State handouts are over both economically and, I think it's fair to say, politically.
Liam Byrne's past Ministerial career leaves him unable to call for such a handout without looking foolish, but as he's the Shadow DWP Secretary he's the one that's been given the job to do it. His hands are tied.
Allowing this to go through and getting a wider review of workfare is really the only option open to them.
Labour aren't opposing it because they're shit scared of actually being a FUCKING OPPOSITION.
Fuck them, frankly. Fuck them in their faces.
You're advocating the worst type of opposition here, Theo.
Sorry, I thought I was replying to some weird comment of yours.
'The days of State handouts are over'
Poundland would no doubt respectfully disagree, seeing as they've been getting shelf-stackers courtesy of the DWP for nowt.
It's not about workfare or handouts though
It's about the rule of law
That is a bigger, and more important issue, I agree.
But as I said semi-trollingly in another thread, it could be argued that those who are elected *should* have the ability to over-rule the decisions of those who are not (see the Commons/Lords, as an example).
Absolutely not
here's a blog post from a right-wing think tank
http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2013/03/the-coalition-government-thinks-it-is-above-the-law/
66
The precedent is a terrifying threat to civil liberty, and because the UK has no codified constitution, it’s entirely within parliament’s prerogative. If government can simply rule on actions ‘ex post facto’ (after the event) then nothing is sacred. You could be walking your dog in Doncaster, completely legally, on Monday, and on Tuesday find that your perambulation was illegal and carries a life sentence. True, criminal cases would be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, but thanks to Parliamentary Sovereignty, the government can ignore such trifles. The entire concept of ‘Rule of Law’ is undermined as soon as the government starts to cover its back like this.
99
hard to disagree with their analysis
'zactly
even more surprising then that Labour haven't strongly opposed it on these grounds
especially after all the 'crossing the Rubicon' claptrap over Leveson - what does that make this?
Hey, whatever happened with all that leveson stuff?
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2013/03/was-cameron-asleep-while-the-press-deal-was-done/
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/18/uk-press-regulation-defines.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Hmm, etc...
Think that Boingboing story might be a bit misleading
'Under sustained questioning on Monday night during the Commons debate about the courts bill, which includes the Leveson regulations, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, said the "publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors – this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger – and whether that material is subject to editorial control".' (from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/19/bloggers-libel-fines-press-regulation)
So it certainly doesn't sound like this would apply to tweeters. I don't know if it would make a difference either way, anyway - even without being under a regulator's control, Twitter users can already be sued for libel.
Maybe we should have a separate thread on this, actually
Yeah, i think it was written before the debate
but that guardian link isn't especially reassuring itself.
Given how messed up libel law is in this country, isn't it a bit concerning that press regulation could go in a similar direction?
(i'll be honest here, i couldn't be bothered to search for all those old leveson threads)
Wouldn't want to have been walking my dog in Doncaster yesterday
That's for sure
ah, fuck you Labour.
the guy talking in Commons right now
is pretty right. Massive geordie, but I don't know.
..who he is.
Apparently he's Ian Lavery, and he's indicating that he'd vote against the legislation. Any chance of there being a revolt, or am I just being massively naive as to how This Sort Of Thing?
This is seriously fucked up
your Government just voted to take £130million off the poorest young people and in the process completely pissed on the rule of law
wow
They didn't "take £130 million of the poorest young people",
They just didn't give it to them. Two different things.
The rule of law thing is fair enough though.
off*
they did
Here are the Labour MPs who voted against the jobseekers bill
http://www.labourlist.org/2013/03/labours-40-welfare-sanctions-rebels/
Bit disappointed not to see my MP on there, to be honest.
My MP voted against.
Makes me proud to live in the People's Republic of Islington North!
<3 Jeremy Corbyn
disappointed but not surprised to see my MP isn't on the list.
she's a decent enough constituency MP but she never goes against the leadership. A few characters on there that you might not expect, though. Paul Goggins and Fiona MacTaggart aren't exactly left-wing firebrands.