[4] The Bill was drafted as a direct result of a court case against the Government lodged by Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson.
[5] They won their case that the "Work Programme" schemes had not been enacted and implemented entirely lawfully, implying that the state should repay benefits unlawfully withheld from claimants.
[6] The DWP reacted to confirm that existing regulations would be tightened up to retain the scheme, saying that only those "serious in finding work" would continue to claim benefits.
[10] The process for drafting and debating the Bill received criticism, as it would effectively reverse the court of appeal's decision and penalise people who were not acting unlawfully at the time.
[16] The second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords attracted a number of scathing comments from legislators for its retrospective changing of the law, allowing benefits claimants to be penalised for actions which had proved legal at the time when they were taken.
[18] The law firm acting for Reilly and Wilson, Public Interest Lawyers, lodged submissions to the supreme court, arguing that 'the actions of the secretary of state … represent a clear violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the rule of law, as an interference in the judicial process by the legislature'.