Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.


'Slave labor?' UK benefits legislation violates human rights, High Court rules

Published time: July 05, 2014 10:54
Edited time: July 05, 2014 19:24
People look at job listings at the Careers and Jobs Live careers fair at the ExCeL centre in London (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)

People look at job listings at the Careers and Jobs Live careers fair at the ExCeL centre in London (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)

Britain’s High Court has ruled against legislation supporting a back-to-work scheme that forced people to work for free to qualify for benefits. The decision could lead to the UK government paying out over $223 million to people denied welfare payments.

Justice Beverly Lang ruled Friday that emergency laws, brought in last year to galvanize the coalition government’s back-to-work schemes, were “incompatible” with the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the judge, the legislation interferes with an individual’s right to a fair trial when applied retrospectively.

The ruling could open the door to a torrent of claimants from people who were denied benefit payments because they did not participate in the scheme. Birmingham-based public interest lawyer Phil Shiner, who fought against the scheme, told the Birmingham Mail that the ruling was a “massive blow” to the government’s “attempts to make poor people on benefits work for companies, who already make massive profits, for free.”

The controversial legislation was introduced by the UK government last year to bolster the back-to-work-scheme, dubbed “slave labor” by the opposition. The scheme obliges those who are out of work to participate in “mandatory work activity” in order to qualify for government benefits.

However, the initiative forced some people to work for free in order to qualify for their benefits. Cait Reilly, 24, issued a legal challenge to the scheme, claiming it violated her human rights. She says she was forced to quit a voluntary job at a museum in Birmingham to work for free in budget store Poundland to qualify for benefits.

The Supreme Court ruled in Reilly’s favor, stating that the back-to-work scheme was flawed as Reilly had not been properly notified of the scheme or its undertakings. However, the court said the program stopped short of calling it slave labor, as it did not force people into work.

Pandora’s box

In response to Reilly’s victory last year, the government introduced the emergency laws to support the scheme. The amendments, which came into force in March 2013, allowed the scheme to continue functioning and blocked any claims for benefits that were denied.

Opponents of the back-to-work scheme say that the latest ruling could force the government to shell out up to 130 million pounds ($223 million) in retrospective benefit claims.

Representatives from the Department for Work and Pensions which implemented the scheme said they were disappointed by the ruling and would appeal.

"We disagree with the judgment on the legislation and are disappointed," a spokeswoman told the BBC. “This applies to only a minority of past cases and does not affect the day-to-day business of our Jobcentres. We think this is an important point and will appeal."

She insisted the scheme would remain in place and no compensation payments would be made, despite the High Court ruling.

Comments (50)


Adrian Fell 21.07.2014 17:35

Theres a few too maney people's messages missing the point here, the article is about slave labour which has been going on for a long time, the majorety of people on benefits will not work for nothing, there are many people employed but still need food stamps to survive, while the people they are working for are having tropical holidays abroad four time a year, !!


lasse 07.07.2014 14:26

First you dump post war full employment politics, then adopt NAIRU economics that demand there to be a large pool of unemployed. Its the same all over Europe who slavishly follow IMF, WB, OECD mandates. And voila you have a pool of workers that can be used for "free", only have to give them so they get enough nutrition to survive.
To run a economy for reasonably full employment is well known, it have been done in the post war period.


Freesaxon 06.07.2014 23:11

All this to a `backdrop' of mass immigration, REAL hidden inflation, high costs for energy, travel, and housing.

Wo rse, suppose you have a jolly decent `average' couple, both out at work daily,( doing the right thing) can they AFFORD to have children ?
Who can ?
Those on Welfare or immigrants with HUGE families.
Then you have the ME ME career couples.

Id iocracy film (2006) crass in many ways, and dodges the real issues at the end, but makes points.

View all comments (50)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or



Show password


or Register

Request a new password


or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:


or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile



New password

Retype new password

Current password



Follow us

Follow us