Morning call: the pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from the morning papers.

1. David Cameron: ‘I have problems with the Thatcher legacy’ (Sunday Times) (£)

The coalition is floundering, yet David Cameron still exudes supreme self-confidence at the dispatch box. As he campaigns for this week’s local elections, Eleanor Mills pins him down

2. The best place to change the EU is the EU (Independent on Sunday)

Former European Commissioner for Trade Lord Mandelson says David Cameron is wrong to pick a fight with Europe.

3. You're only in it for yourself, Nigel: Top Tory donor's blistering open letter to UKIP leader (Mail on Sunday)

An open letter from Michael Ashcroft.

4. A crime mystery. It's going down, but no one really knows why (Observer)

Nearly all the so-called experts predicted that austerity would lead to more crime. The opposite is happening, says Andrew Rawnsley.

5. Human rights are worth fighting for (Sunday Mirror)

If there’s one thing that exposes the hypocrisy of the Tories as the so-called party of law and order, it’s human rights, says John Prescott.

6. Good policies can transcend Right and Left (Sunday Telegraph)

The welfare reform programme is a true instance of compassionate conservatism, says Janet Daley.

7. A contest between my two boys? That sounds like tremendous fun! It would be Bo-Jo v Jo-Jo (Mail on Sunday)

Stanley Johnson got the news late because he spilled wine on his phone. Now a proud father celebrates his son Jo's new job in No10.

8. It's fine to boost the arts, but we should first redefine them (Observer)

Given their importance to the British economy, we must think anew about our cultural industries, says Will Hutton.

9. Forget sarin — Assad crossed the red line with his first murder (Sunday Times) (£)

Are some methods of slaughtering our fellow humans more acceptable than others? Dominic Lawson says yes.

10. Boris and Jo Johnson: Two very different brothers with an eye on the big prize (Sunday Telegraph)

If Jo Johnson could borrow some of Boris’s magnetism there would be no limits to what he could achieve, says Bruce Anderson.

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.