The claimants complained of the system where they were obliged to work for free to claim Jobseekers Allowance.
Held: The 2011 Regulations were required to specify the schemes under which the claimants were to claim. Instead, the regulations had named a scheme of work and the details of it were set out elsewhere. This did not satisfy the requirements of the enabling Act, and the Regulations were to that limited extent unlawful: ‘Simply to give a scheme a name cannot, in context, be treated as a prescribed description of a scheme in which claimants may be required to participate, within section 17A(1). ‘
The challenge based on the alleged breach of article 492) of the Convention failed. Provided the arrangements made serve the statutory purpose stated in section 17A, they need not infringe article 4.
Sir Stanley Burnton discussed the need for Regulations to be available to the public: ‘Where Parliament in a statute has required that something be prescribed in delegated legislation, it envisages, and I think requires, that the delegated legislation adds something to what is contained in the primary legislation. There is otherwise no point in the requirement that the matter in question be prescribed in delegated legislation. However, the description of the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme in the 2011 Regulations adds nothing to the description of such schemes in the Act . . In effect, the Secretary of State contends that any scheme he creates is a scheme within the meaning of section 17A notwithstanding that it is not described in any regulations made under the Act. Furthermore, it is not possible to identify any provision of the Regulations that can be said to satisfy the requirement that the description be ‘determined in accordance with’ the Regulations . . Description of a scheme in regulations is important from the point of view of Parliamentary oversight of the work of the administration. It is also important in enabling those who are required to participate in a scheme, or at least those advising them, to ascertain whether the requirement has been made in accordance with Parliamentary authority . .’
Pill, Black, LJJ, Sir Stanley Burnton
[2013] WLR(D) 55, [2013] EWCA Civ 66, [2013] 3 All ER 67, [2013] 1 WLR 2239
Bailii, WLRD
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 4(2), Jobseekers Act 1995 17A, Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, European Convention on Human Rights 4(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 6-Aug-2012
The claimants sought judicial review of schemes which they said appeared to require them to work for free in order to claim Jobseekers Allowance.
Held: Judicial review was granted. There had been a breach of regulation 4(2) of the 2011 . .
Cited – Van Der Mussele v Belgium ECHR 23-Nov-1983
There is discrimination only if the cases under comparison are not sufficiently different to justify the difference in treatment. This expressed by saying that the two cases must be in an ‘analogous situation’. The social security system is a . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 30-Oct-2013
The Secretary of State appealed against the decision in favour of Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, that the 2011 Regulations, made under section 17A of the 1995 Act, did not comply with the requirements of that section, and (ii) a cross-appeal brought by . .
See Also – Reilly (No 2) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 4-Jul-2014
The Claimants sought a declaration of incompatibility, under section 4 of HRA 1998, on the ground that the 2013 Act was incompatible with their rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.470944