For discussion only.

Reg 73 (2)(b) JSA regs, provides that a claimant shall have good cause for a failure in respect of employment programme related sanctions if he has a conscientious objection.

In R(JSA)7/03, it was held that a conscientous objection is one in which the claimant is required to "to act in a way which (is) contrary to his ethical or moral principles"

If I were taking part in, for example and A4E programme, I would object to the fact that by attending (the "act") I would be allowing Emma Harrison to continue raking in cash at the taxpayers expense, for a scheme which the government has sort of acknowledged does not work (moral principle) (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pathways-evidence-gathering-151209.pdf):

"• Pathways is less effective than we first thought.
• The programme hasn’t been as successful against our most important objective as we had hoped – to help people into work.
• Although the cost per person is not high, the large number of customers makes Pathways one of our most expensive programmes with projected spending from 2008-11 of around £1bn."

Might my case for a conscientious objection be sustainable...?

Just quickly for now Tony as I am off home. Will give it further thought over the weekend (how sad am I ?). I would have thought that that would pass for a political viewpoint as opposed to a moral principle. I'm not quite sure how the two could be separated unless one takes the view that it is not a moral principle as such but a political viewpoint founded on a moral principle which is therefore sufficient to move it away from being a strict moral principle in its purest sense.

Regards
Paul

Isn't JSA the wrong benefit?

No ESA/IB then no Pathways.....

Question is about JSA New Deal.

Pathways doesn't come into it, except in giving rise the objection (the objection being the giving of large sums of taxpayers money, for a scheme that doesn't work (Pathways), to the same person who is running some of the New Deal stuff (A4E).

PS - it's not a real case

Does any of it work?

As my unemployed childhood friend, 20years on the dole says its just stirring the pot.

Absolutely. However, if nobody stirred the pot it would go stale.

Nevertheless, although the example I've chosen to discuss the subject might be designed to remind colleagues of the unfairness of departmental policy and wasteful public expenditure - it's still an interesting discussion point.

I didn't know that 'conscientious objection' was stated as good cause until I came across it last week and, in the context of 'good cause' for failures in employment programmes, I couldn't think of any circumstances where it might be argued. So I thought of this one as it's a recent topic of disdain.

I'm sure I've heard of it before.

I think it might have been something along the line of looking for work as an abbatoir worker?

I appreciate its only a theoretical appeal re the A4E/Pathways thingymabob but the crux of the argument would fail as the Shaw Trust are the Pathways provider and not A4E.

The judge would have the decision written up before you got there.

A4E are the Flexible New Deal provider and soon to be providing to the residents of Greater Manchester help previously known as Work for your Benefits.