Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Anyone who believes in Britain's membership of the EU should stand up and be heard (Independent)

As ever with Europe, there is an appearance of flux while so much essentially remains the same, writes Steve Richards. When will pro-Europeans start to make their case?

2. Cameron strolls towards the EU exit, leaving us none the wiser (Daily Telegraph)

The PM’s failure to explain what he wants for Britain allows others to drive the debate, says Benedict Brogan.

3. If children lose contact with nature they won't fight for it (Guardian)

With half of their time spent at screens, the next generation will be poorly equipped to defend the natural world from harm, says George Monbiot.

4. Europe would lose if Britain left the union (Financial Times)

Brussels would not have to give much ground to keep the UK in the club, writes Gideon Rachman.

5. After Rowan, the Church is taken seriously (Times) (£)

For all his struggles, the Archbishop’s tenure may mark a turning point for Christianity, writes Richard Harries.

6. Another tricky balance for Mr Clegg to strike (Independent)

The Lib Dem leader is right to accept a temporary freeze on benefits, provided he can secure a meaningful wealth tax in return, says an Independent leaer.

7. No amount of moralising will alleviate the hardship caused by Tory austerity (Guardian)

For Iain Duncan Smith, poverty is caused by failure and dysfunction, writes Polly Toynbee. The reality is different, and Labour must say so.

8. The Lords must halt this draconian plan (Daily Mail)

Security considerations can be no justification for the draconian clampdown on open court hearings proposed, says a Daily Mail editorial.

9. Cameron is right to turn to the fixer (Financial Times)

Lynton Crosby might help the Tories fix their weakness without losing their strength, says Janan Ganesh.

10. Is the PM really at war, or simply deluded? (Daily Telegraph)

It was easy to agree with what David Cameron said yesterday, writes Philip Johnston. But harder to believe he’ll deliver.

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.