''R (Reilly and Wilson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions'' UKSC_68
is_a_

UKSC_68
is_a_United_Kingdom_constitutional_law">013
UKSC_68
is_a_United_Kingdom_constitutional_law_and_UK_labour_law.html" "title="United_Kingdom_constitutional_law.html" ;"title="013
UKSC 68
is a United Kingdom constitutional law">013
UKSC 68
is a United Kingdom constitutional law and UK labour law">labour law Labour laws (also known as labor laws or employment laws) are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, ...

case that found the conduct of the Department for Work and Pensions "Workfare in the United Kingdom, workfare" policy was unlawful. Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed driver, challenged the

Jobcentre Jobcentre Plus ( cy, Canolfan byd Gwaith; gd, Ionad Obrach is Eile) is a brand used by the Department for Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom. From 2002 to 2011, Jobcentre Plus was an executive agency which reported directly to the Minis ...

policy of making the unemployed work for private companies to get unemployment income. The outcome of the case affects over 3,000 claimants and entails around £130m unpaid benefits.

Facts

Ms Reilly claimed that the Secretary of State had acted ''

ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is ('within the powers'). Acts that are may equivalently be termed ...

'' by forcing her to attend two weeks of 'training' and work for another two weeks at Poundland without pay, just in order to receive Jobseeker's Allowance. Under the new

Jobseekers Act 1995 The Jobseekers Act 1995c 18 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, which empowers the government to provide unemployment income insurance, or " Jobseeker's Allowance" while people are looking for work. In its current form, jobseeker's allo ...

s. 17A, the Secretary of State could write regulations for claimants to get JSA in prescribed circumstances, and to be require to take part in schemes of a "prescribed description", which under section 35 meant "determined in accordance with regulations". The Secretary of State wrote the

Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 ''R (Reilly and Wilson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions'' 013UKSC 68is a United Kingdom constitutional law and UK labour law">labour law case that found the conduct of the Department for Work and Pensions "Workfare in the United King ...

where regulation 2 said schemes were to assist claimants to get employment, but did not contain any description of the scheme. Under regulation 4(2)(c)(e) claimants were supposed to be given written notice of what they were "required to do" and information about the consequences of failing to do so. After, the SS announced sub-schemes and issued guidance to

advisers to give claimants "full details" of available schemes. Reilly received no written notification requiring her to join a scheme, but was simply told by a Jobcentre adviser that training and

Poundland Poundland is a British variety store chain founded in 1990. It once sold most items at the single price of £1, including Closeout (sale), clearance items and proprietary brands. The first Pilot (experiment), pilot store opened in December 19 ...

was mandatory. In a joined case, Mr Wilson was given written notice requiring his participation in a scheme for the long-term employed and that his income "may be stopped for up to 26 weeks" if he did not take part. The Jobcentre refused to give any more information. He refused to take part and his income was stopped for 6 months. Reilly and Wilson claimed the Regulations should be quashed because (1) they were ultra vires JSA 1995 s. 17A because they failed to prescribe a description of the scheme; (2) there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions in reg. 4; and (3) enforcing the Regulations was unlawful without a published policy on the nature of the scheme and unpaid work. Reilly added that (4) needing to take unpaid work was forced labour contrary to the

European Convention on Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by t ...

article 4.

Judgment

High Court

On 6 August 2012, the High Court ruled (contrary to the arguments of Reilly and Wilson) that the scheme could not be considered slavery, and was not therefore a breach of Article 4 of the

. On the other hand, it also ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had breached its Regulation 4 (which required certain details of the Work Programme to be given to participants in writing). Both parties expressed their wish to appeal the judgement.

Court of Appeal

On 12 February 2013, the decision of the High Court was overturned on appeal, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the work placement system was unlawful because Parliament had not given the DWP lawful authority to impose such schemes and because the people involved were not provided with sufficient information about it. The Court of Appeal quashed the

. The court did not state whether or not the current case impinges on

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits slavery and forced labour. Conscription, national service, prison labour, service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity, and "normal civic obligations" are excepted from these defin ...

. The government appealed the judgment, but on 30 October 2013, the decision of the Appeal Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held there had been no contravention of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but since the court ruled against workfare the comments regarding the human rights do not form part of the reasons for the judgment and therefore are not legally binding.

Lord Neuberger David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury (; born 10 January 1948) is an English judge. He served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until the House of Lo ...

and

Lord Toulson Roger Grenfell Toulson, Lord Toulson, PC (23 September 1946 – 27 June 2017) was a British lawyer and judge who served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Education He was educated at Mill Hill School, to which he won th ...

wrote the following: Lord Clarke, Lord Mance and Lord Sumption agreed.

Significance

Reactions

The findings of the court have been judged to indicate a shift in the nature of "the relationship between social rights and obligations in the context of unemployment policy" in the UK: the founder of the modern UK welfare state,

William Beveridge William Henry Beveridge, 1st Baron Beveridge, (5 March 1879 – 16 March 1963) was a British economist and Liberal politician who was a progressive and social reformer who played a central role in designing the British welfare state. His 194 ...

, conceived the classical welfare state as freeing people from Want, while obliging them to work when possible. Kenneth Veitch has argued the rulings in ''Reilly v Secretary of State'' imply that Want is now used as a threat to ensure that welfare claimants habituate themselves to the demands of the contemporary workplace.

Subsequent litigation

On 19 March 2013, before the appeal to the Supreme Court was completed, the Government also passed the

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 is an emergency Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom introduced to the House of Commons in March 2013. It retrospectively changed the law to make past actions of the government which the courts ha ...

to retrospectively make its unlawful sanctions against benefits claimants legal, in order to avoid potentially having to repay unlawfully withheld benefits payments of around £130m. In response to the law change, the law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson,

Public Interest Lawyers In public relations and communication science, publics are groups of individual people, and the public (a.k.a. the general public) is the totality of such groupings. This is a different concept to the sociological concept of the ''Öffentlichkei ...

, lodged submissions to the Supreme Court, arguing that "the actions of the secretary of state ... represent a clear violation of article 6

f the European Convention on Human Rights F, or f, is the sixth Letter (alphabet), letter in the Latin alphabet, used in the English alphabet, modern English alphabet, the alphabets of other western European languages and others worldwide. Its name in English is English alphabet#Let ...

and the rule of law, as an interference in the judicial process by the legislature". On Friday 4 July 2014, Mrs Justice Lang, sitting at the High Court in London, ruled that the retrospective nature of the legislation interfered with the "

right to a fair trial A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, th ...

" under Article Six of the Convention on Human Rights. The government appealed this ruling, but on 29 April 2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous court's decision; Lord Justice Underhill, summarising the court's findings, emphasised that although the Act was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, "it is up to the Government, subject to any further appeal, to decide what action to take in response".

Notes

References

*A Paz-Fuchs and A Eleveld, 'Workfare Revisited' (2016) 45(1) Industrial Law Journal 29 *E McGaughey, ''A Casebook on Labour Law'' (Hart 2019) ch 16, 723 {{Workfare in the United Kingdom Unemployment in the United Kingdom Workfare in the United Kingdom 2013 in British law 2013 in case law Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases United Kingdom labour case law United Kingdom constitutional case law