Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. End the damaging obsession with deficit (Financial Times)

America must not lose sight of infrastructure, jobs and growth, says Lawrence Summers.

2. Cameron's message is Tory but his enemies have drowned it out (Daily Telegraph)

The PM is allowing his adversaries to define him, says Benedict Brogan. Will the real party leader please stand up?

3. Cameron is lucky to have a Foreign Secretary with experience but no political ambition (Independent)

Unusually, Hague can be candid with Cameron without fearing for his political future, writes Steve Richards. He does not seek a future.

4. Israel’s moderate voices won't be heard at this election (Daily Telegraph)

The loudest applause is reserved for the new right and talk of peace with the Palestinians is increasingly drowned out, writes Peter Oborne.

5. Algeria hostage crisis aftermath: only folly lasts for decades (Guardian)

With such a history of failure in Muslim countries one would have thought David Cameron would choose his words with more care, says a Guardian editorial.

6. Custodian of an interventionist legacy (Financial Times)

Cameron filters Blair’s basic arguments through a very Tory temperament, writes Janan Ganesh. 

7. Algeria head good – Europe head bad (Times) (£)

The EU is an old and damaging distraction for Cameron, says Rachel Sylvester. He looks stronger dealing with modern issues.

8. I agree with Churchill: let's get stuck into the real shirkers (Guardian)

They parasitise us from above, writes George Monbiot. But landowners and the Tory party's idle rich are spared the fairest and simplest of taxes.

9. An action-packed thriller is about to unfold in Davos, Switzerland (Guardian)

In secret meetings in tiny rooms, the rich plot to get even richer, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

10. A crisis of leadership in the western world (Daily Mail)

The west is now run by a new class of career politician, with no expertise in anything beyond spinning a line at election, says a Daily Mail leader.

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.