Mandatory Work Activity
Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) was a
Legal challenge to the scheme, and retrospective legislation
The legality of the scheme was indirectly challenged in the case
The Department for Work and Pensions appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, it also drafted new regulations to ensure the continuance of the work placements. During the period of the scheme which had been ruled unlawful, perhaps 300,000 people had had benefits of an average of around £530-70 withheld,[3] totalling around £130m which the DWP was potentially obliged to repay if Reilly and Wilson won their case in the Supreme Court. The Government sought to avoid having to make these repayments by retrospectively changing the law through the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, which became law on 26 March 2013.[4][5][6][7]
However, Mandatory Work Activity was created under its own set of regulations so though the ruling touched on many of the same issues and the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act amended the regulatory foundation of the scheme, it was not directly affected by the outcome of the Appeal Court ruling.[8]
The law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, Public Interest Lawyers, reportedly lodged submissions to the supreme court, arguing that 'the actions of the secretary of state … represent a clear violation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights and the rule of law, as an interference in the judicial process by the legislature'.[9]
Legal challenge to non-disclosure of participating organisations
The Department for Work and Pensions worked to keep secret the list of organisations participating in the MWA scheme. A freedom of information request submitted around March 2012 resulted in a first-tier tribunal ruling in May 2013 that the DWP must reveal these names. The deadline for appeals expired in October 2013.[10] A provisional list of organisations using workfare has been collected by the Boycott Workfare campaign.[11]
2016 Appeal Court Ruling and Disclosure
The DWP spent four years attempting to block the release of the names of "placement providers": three successive appeals following as many court rulings ordering they be made public, culminated in July 2016 with the Court of Appeal ruling against the DWP's attempts to keep them a secret, the lists revealing the names of 534 "placement provider" organisations.
See also
- Boycott Workfare
- Economic oppression
- Refusal of work
- Unfree labour
- Wage slavery
- Work Programme
- Workfare in the United Kingdom
References
- ^ "Department for Work and Pensions' settlement at the Spending Review". DWP. 2015-11-25. Retrieved 2015-11-27.
- ^ "Qualitative evaluation of the Jobseeker Mandatory Activity (JMA) (PDF 236.97 KB)". Sheffield Hallam University. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
- ^ a b Simon Parker (28 March 2013). "Workfare and the State of Exception". openDemocracyUK. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ "Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill: Explanatory Notes". UK Parliament. 19 March 2013. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ "Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013". ww.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ "The Rule of Law Undermined". Law Student Leaks. 19 Mar 2013. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ Shiv Malik (15 March 2013). "DWP Seeks Law Change to Avoid Benefit Repayments after Poundland Ruling". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ Suzuki, Moet; Malik, Shiv (12 February 2013). "Poundland ruling 'blows big hole' through government work schemes". The Guardian. London.
- ^ Hugh Muir; Shiv Malik (21 March 2013). "Labour Abstention on Workfare Bill Prompts Party Infighting". Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ Shiv Malik (19 May 2013). "Workfare placements must be made public, tribunal rules". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- ^ Boycott Workfare campaign