Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Labour’s half-time lead counts for nothing The Telegraph

It’s no good defending – Miliband must bring an old star off the bench to secure victory, writes Matthew Norman.

2. Labour needs real cuts as well as real ideas The Times (£)

What happens to the benefits bill under a Miliband government? Voters need details as well as philosophy, writes Philip Collins.

3. On Abu Hamza as on defending your home, the suitably named Judge Judge has called it right The Independent

The delays to the hook-handed hate preacher's deportation are a disgrace; and of course we should be able to defend our own homes, writes Evgeny Lebedev.

4. This is the speech Ed Miliband should make next Tuesday The Guardian

At the Labour party conference, Miliband must lift his eyes from those gathered in the hall and address the whole country, writes Jonathan Freedland.

5. Goodbye Beveridge: welfare’s end nears The Financial Times (£)

The latest British Social Attitudes survey spells out in agonising detail the collapse in support over the past decade or so for social security spending and what might be called poor peoples’ welfare, writes David Goodhart.

6. For voters ten years is a short time in politics The Times (£)

We experts obsessed with the latest Westminster story can lose sight of what’s really important to most people, writes Matthew Parris.

7. An enemy at the gates of Downing Street? The Telegraph

An argument about a bicycle has exposed festering police resentment against the Government and raised big questions about the Metropolitan Police’s public accountability, writes John Yates, former UK Head of Counter Terrorism.

8. Why do we care about Megan Stammers from Eastbourne but not "Suzie" from Rochdale? The Independent

The authorities knew about the girls’ plight in Rochdale and did nothing. But every girl deserves to be respected, regardless of her background, writes Laurie Penny.

9. Catalan with Spain’s future in his hands The Financial Times (£)

A full-blown constitutional crisis, in which the survival of the Spanish nation-state within its present boundaries is at stake, will now collide head on with the eurozone and fiscal crises, writes David Gardner.

10. Animal research is brave, not cruel, science The Guardian

Attitudes to animal research have changed, yet many scientists still fear speaking about their essential and important work, says Fiona Fox.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.