The Government is hastily revising its back-to-work schemes after a major Appeal Court ruling today.

Three judges ruled that the regulations under which most of the schemes were created are unlawful - and quashed them.

The Government expressed “disappointment and surprise” at the decision and said it now intends to push through new regulations to ensure future schemes are lawfully based. Moves to appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling are also under consideration.

The court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully in requiring university graduate Cait Reilly to work for free at a Poundland discount store under a flagship back-to-work scheme.

Miss Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes they were required to participate in were legally flawed.

Their solicitors said later that the ruling means “all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits”.

Public Interest Lawyers said: “The result is that over the past two years the Government has unlawfully required tens of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped thousands more of their subsistence benefits.”

Employment minister Mark Hoban said he was disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on the regulations.

I totally get the idea behind what they were trying to do, but my word did the monumentally [LIFTED] up the implementation. If instead of going for corporates they'd tried to fit people in with charities then all of these issues could have been avoided.

That's missing the point though, isn't it?

The theory behind it is to give people work experience, yes, but mainly to sell themselves as a viable employee to firms; it's not designed to be community service in exchange for benefits payment. I don't imagine many charities are hiring in the current climate, so they'd be a poor choice.

The whole idea is flawed - there are companies out there probably willing to to sign up someone on a two month contract, making tea or doing the filing. Then start again in two months, content in the knowledge they are offering work experience and getting free labour, but never actually advertising the position that these six people will fill over a 12 month period; so they're actually reducing the job pool.

I totally get the idea behind what they were trying to do, but my word did the monumentally [LIFTED] up the implementation. If instead of going for corporates they'd tried to fit people in with charities then all of these issues could have been avoided.

It might be beneficial for someone with no previous work experience or no skills and qualifications, but pushing this onto qualified people - be they graduates, HGV drivers or people with clerical experience, is absolutely [LIFTED] ridiculous. Who needs "work experience" in Tesco for £71 a week when they have 10 years' experience as an administrator or some such?

no-pay placements judged unlawful

good, if they want people to work then they pay them the going rate while working/training ...

It is not as if it is not hard to sack anyone. They have up to two years to decide whether the person is suitable.

Plus the Job Centre has saved them a fortune in advertising and agency fees. You would have thought this was a win-win situation all round, but clearly not. If this was Victorian times, we'd be moaning about the workhouse.