R (Reilly) No. 1 v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68; [2014] AC 453; [2014] 1 All ER 505

Human rights laws, particularly Article 4 of the European Convention, prohibit forced or compulsory labour.

• Any work demanded under threat or duress, including unpaid work required for jobseeker’s allowance, must be carefully reviewed to ensure it does not violate these rights.

• Jobseekers' allowance claimants may be required to undertake unpaid work to keep their benefits.

• However, if this work is mandatory and performed under threat of losing the allowance, it may be considered forced labour, raising concerns about human rights violations.

The Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme requires clear and detailed terms for claimant participation.

• The Secretary of State must provide these details to ensure claimants understand their obligations and avoid unfair sanctions.

• The Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 must comply with statutory authority and provide sufficient detail about the scheme.

• Regulations lacking detailed descriptions may be challenged as exceeding legal authority.

Section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 allowed regulations to impose participation requirements on jobseeker’s allowance claimants in prescribed schemes to help them find employment.

• "Prescribed" meant specified in regulations.

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 were enacted under Section 17A.

• Regulation 2 described a single scheme with vague terms, while Regulation 4(2)(c)(e) required written notice detailing participation and consequences.

Caitlin Reilly (“First Claimant”):

• Received no written notice but was told participation in an unpaid work scheme was mandatory.

• She complied unwillingly.

Jamieson Wilson (“Second Claimant”):

• Received written notice about required participation and potential benefit suspension.

• Despite refusal, his benefit was stopped for six months.

The claimants challenged the Regulations, arguing they were:

1. Ultra vires for lack of detailed description.

2. Non-compliant with notice provisions.

3. Unlawful due to lack of a published policy on scheme details and unpaid work.

4. The first claimant also argued forced labour under Article 4 of the European Convention.

The judge found the Regulations did not adequately describe the scheme and failed in notice provisions. The Court of Appeal confirmed the Regulations were ultra vires for not describing the scheme properly and upheld the notice failure but dismissed the appeals on other grounds.

The court affirmed that Regulation 2 of the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 did not meet the "prescribed description" requirement of Section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995, as it did not add substantive detail beyond the primary legislation.

• The Court of Appeal had been correct in finding the Regulations ultra vires. This issue was later addressed by the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013.

The court partially allowed the appeal, finding that the notice to the second claimant lacked necessary detail about the work requirements, violating Regulation 4(2)(c).

• However, the notice on the consequences of non-participation had met Regulation 4(2)(e) requirements.

• Thus, the second claimant did not receive lawful notice.

The cross-appeals were dismissed.

• While claimants should have been informed about schemes involving unpaid work, the court did not prescribe specific communication methods.

• The failure to adequately inform claimants would have invalidated notice, but since the notices had already been deemed unlawful, no additional relief was necessary.

The court ruled that the work requirement for receiving benefits did not amount to forced labour under Article 4 of the Convention, which targeted exploitation.

• Therefore, the first claimant’s Article 4 rights had not been violated.

• The Court of Appeal's decision was upheld on these grounds.

Human rights laws, particularly Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, strictly prohibit forced or compulsory labour.

• This principle is crucial when examining work requirements tied to receiving jobseeker’s allowance.

• Any mandatory unpaid work imposed under the threat of benefit suspension must be scrutinized to ensure it does not breach these fundamental rights.

Jobseekers’ allowance claimants are sometimes required to undertake unpaid work to maintain their benefits.

• While such schemes are intended to assist claimants in gaining employment, they raise significant concerns when participation is compulsory and linked to the threat of losing financial support.

• This can border on forced labour, potentially violating human rights protections

The Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme shows the need for clear, detailed terms governing claimant participation.

• The Secretary of State must provide comprehensive information about the scheme to ensure claimants fully understand their obligations and the consequences of non-compliance.

• This transparency is essential to avoid unjust penalties and ensure fair treatment.

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011, enacted under Section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995, aimed to implement these requirements.

• However, the Regulations were criticized for lacking sufficient detail about the scheme.

• Regulation 2 only provided a broad description, while Regulation 4(2)(c)(e) required specific written notices outlining participation requirements and potential consequences.

The Claimants challenged the Regulations on multiple grounds, including their ultra vires nature due to insufficient detail, non-compliance with notice provisions, and the lack of a published policy on the scheme’s specifics.

• Reilly also argued that the unpaid work requirement amounted to forced labour under Article 4 of the Convention.

• The court agreed that the Regulations did not provide a "prescribed description" as required by Section 17A, leading to their classification as ultra vires.

• Although the notice provisions were found deficient, the court did not find a breach of Article 4 in Reilly’s case, ruling that the unpaid work requirement did not constitute forced labour.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was upheld, affirming that while the Regulations were inadequate and the notices unlawful, the issue was later addressed by the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013.

• The court’s stance reinforced the importance of detailed, transparent regulations and the protection of human rights in employment-related schemes.

R (Reilly) No. 2 v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions