The Work Programme

James Spencer-Gray made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Work and Pensions

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Department for Work and Pensions.

James Spencer-Gray

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Could you please confirm that no individual, who had been allocated to the Work Programme, and who was not in receipt of any CASH monies (benefits) was mandated to undertake a work placement and subsequently received a formal letter threatening them with sanctions as they had failed to comply with this demanded work placement.

I do note the defence comments, made under oath in various senior courts in respect of the hearings Reilly v the DWP.

Based on evidence given by the DWP one can only assume the answer would be zero and that no one was asked to undertake a force/compulsory labour placement.

Can you confirm this is correct.

Yours faithfully,

James Spencer-Gray

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

no-reply@dwp.ecase.co.uk on behalf of Operations FOI Team, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear James Spencer-Gray,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 2
February.

Your response is attached

Yours sincerely,

DWP Operations FOI Team

James Spencer-Gray

Dear [email address] on behalf of Operations FOI Team,

Can you deny the contents of your departments documentation, your ref FOI 2018/04471 of the 17.10.2108 which I quote:-

The Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) does not run any schemes where job seekers are forced to work for FREE. The Supreme Court in the case of Reilly ruled that the Department's mandatory Back to Work Schemes, which include the Work Programme, do not breach Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (forced or compulsory labour),. See Reilly and Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2013) UKSC 68, at paragraphs 77-91...………...Therefore the Department strongly refutes any allegation that mandating participation on any of its employment programmes amounts to forced labour.

On the basis of this official document could you please therefore confirm that if anyone was punished for not undertaking a mandated work placement when THEY WERE NOT IN RECEIPT OF ANY CASH BENEFIT MONIES, TH E ACTION WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

the question can therefore NOT be classified as VEXTIOUS as it sought clarification of an OFICIAL PUBLIC DOMIAN DOCUMENT.

I await your formal response

Yours sincerely,

James Spencer-Gray

Operations FOI Requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally expect a response within 20 working days.
  
For further information on making Freedom of Information requests please click on the link below.

https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

show quoted sections

no-reply@dwp.ecase.co.uk on behalf of DWP Central FOI Team, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear James Spencer-Gray,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 14th
February.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

What I find amazing it that they have admitted their guilt and would have perjured themselves in court, if individuals such as me had been requested to work for free when not in receipt of any government monies but yet when quoting their own documentation they still try to pervert the course of justice.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

You may be interested in this recent UT decision:

MB v SSWP (JSA)[2021] UKUT 69 (AAC)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

'8. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State has in fact complied with her duty under section 1A(4) of the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 and superseded the tribunal’s decision of 20 December 2012 so as to overturn the ‘sanction’ decision it upheld. It is common ground that the ‘sanction’ decision is the decision which the tribunal upheld that JSA was not payable to the appellant from 16 February 2012 to 29 February 2012. The effect of superseding the tribunal’s upholding of this sanction decision has been to decide that JSA is payable to the appellant from 16 February 2012 to 29 February 2012.'

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

Thank you for the notification, however this is one major difference in my case and that of MB, namely I was NEVER in receipt of the JSA Allowance and the only cost incurred by the tax payer was the fee paid to the work provider. As I was not in receipt of the JSA Allowance I was precluded from all the schemes available to those on the work programme, yes total discrimination and although i was threatened with financial hardship I did point out that they could not confiscate something which I did not have.
A shame no one at Essex DWP apparently could read the documentation concerning allocation.

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

Interesting that after nearly nine weeks they used their "get out of jail card" by claiming the question was vexatious.

So do I believe a written declaration by the DWP that they did not perjure themselves in the Supreme Court by declaring that no one had been requested to work for FREE when I was when not in receipt of any benefits (cash).

A case of trying to pervert the course of justice?