Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Monday will be the day that defines this government (Guardian)

Those on low incomes, after all the vicious talk dismissing them as cheats and idlers, will be hit by an avalanche of cuts, writes Polly Toynbee.

2. Even now, after all that's happened to Cyprus, they’re queuing up to join the euro (Daily Telegraph)

It defies belief that Poland and others are still keen on joining the economic doomsday machine of the single currency, says Jeremy Warner.

3. Abu Qatada: the law won (Guardian)

The judges who ruled against the Home Office aren't woolly liberals, says Conor Gearty. They're just doing their job.

4. Let schools make money and we will all profit (Times)

Turn teachers into entrepreneurs and we will get the cash for the places we so badly need, says Philip Collins.

5. It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about (Daily Telegraph)

No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive, writes Fraser Nelson.

6. Burma in 2013 reminds me of Yugoslavia in 1991 (Independent)

Nobody thought civil war could break out then - and the same view holds strong in Burma now, writes Peter Popham. But violence this week may not be the end of it.

7. Britain can’t afford this level of immigration (Daily Telegraph)

The coalition is making headway in tackling large-scale immigration, but it needs to do far more, argue Frank Field and Nicholas Soames.

8. Cameron must listen to the Tory grassroots to stay on top (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister's decision to appoint right-winger John Hayes to the Cabinet Office is an encouraging one, says a Daily Mail leader.

9. Europe risks going too far on moral hazard (Financial Times)

Systemic risk now poses a greater threat to lenders, says Nicolas Véron.

10. Another tug at Britain’s unravelling energy plan (Independent)

Three energy ministers in only seven months does not inspire investor confidence, says an Independent editorial.

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.