View source for Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013

{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{Politics of the United Kingdom}}

The '''Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013'''<ref>[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/jobseekersbacktoworkschemes/documents.html Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes Bill documentation] Parliament.uk</ref> is an emergency [[Act of Parliament]] of the [[United Kingdom]] introduced to the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] in March 2013.<ref>[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/jobseekersbacktoworkschemes/documents.html Stages of the Bill] Parliament.uk</ref> It retrospectively changed the law to make past actions of the government which the courts had found unlawful to be lawful. As of July 2014, the Act has been found to contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

== Content and passage of the Bill ==
Related to programmes through the United Kingdom's Coalition Government's "Work Programme",<ref>[http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/the-work-programme/ The Work Programme] Department for Work and Pensions</ref> created by the [[Department for Work and Pensions]] (DWP), the Jobseeker's (Back to Work Schemes) Bill addressed situations where [[Jobseeker's Allowance]] claimants may be asked to work without pay in some circumstances.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/22/mps-blast-work-programme MPs blast government's flagship Work Programme] ''The Guardian''</ref>

The Bill was drafted as a direct result of a [[Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions|court case against the Government]] lodged by Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9455713/Poundland-forced-labour-was-lawful-work-scheme-High-Court-rules.html Poundland 'forced labour' was lawful work scheme, High Court rules] ''The Telegraph''</ref> They won their case that the "Work Programme" schemes had not been enacted and implemented entirely lawfully, implying that the state should repay benefits unlawfully withheld from claimants.<ref>[http://news.sky.com/story/1051035/poundland-graduate-cait-reilly-wins-appeal Poundland Graduate Cait Reilly Wins Appeal] Sky News</ref> The DWP reacted to confirm that existing regulations would be tightened up to retain the scheme, saying that only those "serious in finding work" would continue to claim benefits.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/12/graduate-poundland-government-work-schemes Graduate's Poundland victory leaves government work schemes in tatters] ''The Guardian''</ref>

Secretary of State [[Iain Duncan Smith]] confirmed in media interviews that the Jobseeker's (Back to Work Schemes) Bill was drafted in reaction to the court case, as he wanted to deal with people he said thought they "were too good" for such schemes.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21490542 IDS attacks people who 'think they're too good' for work schemes] BBC News</ref> The Bill was introduced before the appeal process in Reilly and Jamieson's case was complete. The Bill was "introduced to avoid the need to repay claimants who have been sanctioned for failure to comply with requirements under the ESE Regulations".<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0149/en/2013149en.pdf Explanatory notes] Parliament.uk</ref> "ESE Regulations" are those contained in the [[Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011]].<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/917/introduction/made The Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011] Legislation.gov.uk</ref>

The process for drafting and debating the Bill received criticism, as it would effectively reverse the court of appeal's decision and penalise people who were not acting unlawfully at the time.<ref>[http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2013/03/the-coalition-government-thinks-it-is-above-the-law/ The Coalition Government thinks it is above the law] CIVITAS</ref> Civil rights organisations linked such moves with oppressive regimes.<ref>[http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/03/19/ids-emergency-jobseeker-law-sparks-civil-liberties-outrage IDS' emergency jobseeker law sparks civil liberties outrage] Politics.co.uk</ref>

===Progress through Parliament===

The Bill was 'fast-tracked' through parliament, with the consequence that it was not possible for the [[Joint Committee on Human Rights]] to scrutinise it. The [[Constitution Committee|House of Lords Constitutional Committee]], moreover, 'concluded that the government had not advanced a good rationale for the Bill to be fast-tracked'.<ref>Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, ''Public Law'', 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 207.</ref>

Minister for Disabled People [[Esther McVey]] said the Bill was about 'giving jobseekers the best possible way to find employment'. The "second reading" stage was passed by 277 votes to 57.<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130319/debtext/130319-0003.htm#13031966001629 Hansard] Parliament.uk</ref> Forty members of the opposition Labour Party opposed the Bill.<ref>[http://labourlist.org/2013/03/labours-40-welfare-sanctions-rebels/ Labour's 40 welfare sanctions rebels] Labour List</ref> The Labour Party largely abstained from voting on the Bill, which was seen as effectively supporting the measure.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/19/labour-rush-benefit-rebates-poundland Labour to help rush through bill to stop benefit rebates after Poundland ruling] ''The Guardian''</ref>

The second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords attracted a number of scathing comments from legislators for its retrospective changing of the law, allowing benefits claimants to be penalised for actions which had proved legal at the time when they were taken.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2013-03-21a.729.0|title = Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill — Second Reading}}</ref>

The Bill passed its third reading in the Commons by 263 votes to 52 on 19 March 2013.<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130319/debtext/130319-0003.htm#13031966001629 Hansard] Parliament.uk</ref>

== Appeal against the Bill ==
The law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, [[Public Interest Lawyers]], 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'.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Muir |first=Hugh |last2=Malik |first2=Shiv |date=2013-03-21 |title=Labour abstention on workfare bill prompts party infighting |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/21/labour-abstention-workfare-bill-byrne |access-date=2024-06-07 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> 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 Reilly's [[right to a fair trial]] under Article Six of the Convention on Human Rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/the-queen-on-the-application-of-reilly-no-2-and-hewstone-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions/|title = The Queen on the application of Reilly (No. 2) and Hewstone -v- the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions}}</ref> The government announced that it would appeal this ruling, and did not in the meantime make any payouts. On 29 April 2016, the appeal came before the Court of Appeal, which 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'.<ref>PA Money, 'Government loses latest round of legal battle over its back-to-work schemes', https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/government-loses-latest-round-legal-093606127.html (29 April 2016).</ref>

== Remedial Order ==
The incompatibility of the Act with the European Convention on Human Rights was eventually resolved when Parliament approved The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2020, a [[Statutory instrument (UK)#Remedial Orders under the Human Rights Act 1998|Remedial Order]] under the [[Human Rights Act 1998]]. The Order inserted two new sections into the Act to restore the position of claimants who had pending appeals on 26 March 2013, and to allow the Secretary of State to administratively remake their decision where these claimants' appeals had been finally rejected since then.<ref>The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2020, 2020 No. 1085, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1085/contents/made</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

{{Workfare in the United Kingdom}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:United Kingdom labour law]]
[[Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2013]]
[[Category:Workfare in the United Kingdom]]