Tories squabble over gay marriage

No tax break for married couples in next month's Budget.

It has emerged that the government is not going to introduce tax breaks for married couples in next month's Budget, and the news has reignited Tory anger over Cameron's support for gay marriage.

The two issues are connected in the minds of Tory backbenchers, as they see it as a matter of Cameron's priorities on gay vs heterosexual marriage. There had been speculation that Cameron would bring in married tax breaks in order to appease party members who are anti-gay marriage. 

The government is to vote on gay marriage next week. 

This comes as a ComRes poll for the Daily Telegraph suggests that one in five Conservatives would "definitely not" vote for the party in 2013 if the Government continues with plans for same sex marriage, and The Times reports that members are leaving the party "in droves" over the issue. According to The Times, those quiting number up to 100 in some seats. It quotes Tory MP David Burrowes saying: "There's serious unrest in the grassroots. You cannot avoid the fact that the troops are unhappy. People are drifting away."

According to the FT, at least half the party's backbenchers will "revolt" against the move - although, as my colleague George Eaton wrote

Should Conservative cabinet ministers vote against equal marriage, it will not qualify as a rebellion because David Cameron has offered a free vote to his MPs.

However, the split within the party over the vote will heighten speculation over a 2015 leadership change for the Tory party. As George Osborne said, gay marriage acts as a litmus test for how well efforts to modernise the party are working, and the widening gulf between members suggests a good portion of the party is a long way behind.

Tory anger over gay marriage. Photograph: Getty Images
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.