Poundland. Photograph by Martin Pettitt
The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced “emergency legislation” in an attempt to avoid Court of Appeal’s “Poundland decision” last month which found almost all the government’s “work-for-your-benefit” employment schemes unlawful.
The case centred around the claims of Cait Reilly and Janieson Wilson that the DWP’s schemes were legally flawed as the unemployed were not given sufficient information on their rights to appeal against being forced to work up to 780 hours unpaid and the penalties they faced should they opt not to do so.
In response to the court’s decision, the DWP said:
“We have no intention of giving back money to anyone who has had their benefits removed because they refused to take getting into work seriously”
How they attempt to avoid paying the thousands of unemployed people a rebate of between £530 and £580 each, at a total cost to the tax payer of around £130 million, is now clear in this emergency Job Seekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill (PDF) under the guise of aiming to “protect the national economy”.
The bill would also prevent any future claims for the national minimum wage from these unpaid workers having spent hours working for no pay at companies such as Tesco, Matalan, and Poundland.
The government’s work-for-your-benefits schemes have been under attack from a number of fronts including being described as “slave labour” with participants forced to work for no pay or have their benefits cut. Others have complained on the effect of the schemes on the job marketplace, where the schemes possibly causing a depression on wages, as the companies involved were getting free labour and so would have little incentive to take on new fully paid staff. Other sectors also complained of the schemes being effective government subsidies to high street chains, as the tax payer is essentially paying the workers’ wages, whilst the companies retain the profits from their work.
These emergency laws have come under criticism as well, with lawyers and activists complaining of it being “repugnant” behaviour that undermines the rule of law.