Government Loses Cait Reilly Workfare Appeal

But not the bit about slave labour. This looks like progress, of a sort, but I’m a bit confused, as it seems there could have been more progress.

The government has lost a Supreme Court appeal over a ruling its flagship “back to work” schemes were legally flawed.

Ministers failed in a bid to overturn an earlier ruling that regulations underpinning the schemes were invalid.

The case was brought by graduate Cait Reilly. She also claimed that requiring her to work for nothing at a Poundland store breached laws on forced labour.

But employment minister Esther McVey said the judges had specifically rejected claims of “slave labour”.

Critics have said the schemes are unfair because they involve work without pay and cuts in jobseeker’s allowance for those who failed to comply with the rules.

Five Supreme Court justices upheld a Court of Appeal decision which went against the government in February, because of shortcomings in the way the schemes were explained to those taking part.

But the Supreme Court rejected a counter-appeal against the scheme and upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the government’s favour that the regulations did not constitute forced or compulsory labour.

Ministers had brought in new rules allowing the unpaid schemes to continue pending the outcome of the appeal.

Ms McVey rejected suggestions that the ruling was a blow for the government, describing it as a “victory for common sense”.

She told the BBC that the government had listened to the concerns about the schemes and would introduce further safeguards to clarify what was expected of those taking part.

But she insisted that judges had backed the fundamental basis of the scheme – to give people experience of holding down a job – and the possible use of sanctions.

“First and foremost, it is about getting people into work and supporting them the best we can and we are doing a very good job of that,” she said.