Scheme to make jobless work at Poundland for free WAS unlawful, Supreme Court rules but claim it was 'forced labour' is thrown out Supreme Court upheld earlier ruling that scheme was invalid Regulations of work-for-welfare project did not give jobless enough details But judges throw out claims that the scheme amounted to forced labour Cait Reilly took government to court after being told to work for free A government scheme forcing the jobless to work in Poundland for free was legally flawed, the UK's highest court ruled today. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith failed in a Supreme Court bid to overturn an earlier ruling that regulations underpinning the schemes were invalid. But he hailed the ruling which agreed it was "ridiculous to say that our schemes amounted to forced labour." Ruling: The Supreme Court said jobseekers were not given enough information about the sanctions for not taking a placement at Poundland University graduate Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, challenged having to work for free at a local Poundland discount store. At the Court of Appeal today Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton unanimously agreed that the 2011 "work for your benefits" regulations failed to give the unemployed enough information, especially about the sanctions for refusing jobs under the schemes. It was also a victory for 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, who objected to doing unpaid work cleaning furniture and as a result was stripped of his jobseeker's allowance for six months. Criticism: Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said it was 'ridiculous' to suggest the scheme was forced labour Lawyers for the pair said the immediate effect of the ruling was that all applicants who had their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the schemes were entitled to reclaim their allowance. But the Supreme Court ruled that regulations did not constitute forced or compulsory labour. While the government took the case to the Supreme Court it fast-tracking retrospective legislation through Parliament. Today Mr Duncan Smith said: "We are very pleased that the Supreme Court today unanimously upheld our right to require those claiming jobseeker's allowance to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. We have always said that it was ridiculous to say that our schemes amounted to forced labour, and yet again we have won this argument. Ultimately this judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into work seriously if they want to claim benefits. Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson ruled that the regulations were "invalid" as they did not contain a sufficiently detailed "prescribed description" of the work schemes. It also agreed that Mr Duncan Smith had failed to provide sufficient information about the schemes to Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson. But on the issue of "forced labour" the justices dismissed an appeal by Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, ruling that the regulations do not constitute forced or compulsory labour. Victory: Cait Reilly, pictured at an earlier hearing, took the government to court over its flagship back-to-work scheme Ms Reilly said: "I am really pleased with today's judgment, which I hope will serve to improve the current system and assist jobseekers who have been unfairly stripped of their benefits. I brought these proceedings because I knew that there was something wrong when I was stopped from doing voluntary work in a local museum and instead forced to work for Poundland for free. I have been fortunate enough to find work in a supermarket but I know how difficult it can be. It must be time for the Government to rethink its strategy and actually do something constructive to help lift people out of unemployment and poverty. Phil Shiner, head of Public Interest Lawyers, said: "Once again the Department for Work and Pensions flagship Back to Work schemes have been found wanting. Today's ruling from the Supreme Court is of huge constitutional and practical significance. My firm will now get on with challenging, by judicial review, the retrospective legislation which was shamefully rushed through Parliament by Iain Duncan Smith in March of this year.