What today's introduction of Employment Tribunal Fees really means

As of this morning, Employment Tribunals - set up to provide a proper, impartial forum for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers - are no longer free to access.

The Government's legal aid cuts may have attracted their fair share of criticism, but another reform with potentially huge implications for access to justice quietly kicks in today.

As of this morning, Employment Tribunals - set up to provide a proper, impartial forum for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers - are no longer free to access. If you're unfairly sacked, discriminated against or don't receive wages owed from now on, you'll need to pay an upfront cost or bite your lip.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the £84m (or £74m, depending on which particular Government document you happen to be looking at) cost of running the Employment Tribunals Service is too high. They say it's unfair for taxpayers to foot the bill for workers who choose to "escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal" and argue that "drawn out disputes" can "emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses".

What this translates to is a fees system compelling claimants (almost always employees or ex-employees) to pay £160 just to begin the process of challenging employers over relatively simple matters like non-payment of wages or statutory redundancy pay.

Should they then want to take the case to a full hearing, they'll need a further £230. If that seems onerous, spare a thought for those challenging unfair dismissal, sexual or racial discrimination in the workplace, or sackings arising from whistle-blowing, who will now have to cough up £250 upfront, with a further £950 due for a day at tribunal.

There's no guarantee either that a claimant will get their fees back, even if they win their case. While the new rules allow tribunals to impose a costs order against a losing party, this is entirely at a judge's discretion, so even if an employee proves that they were, for example, the victim of sexual harassment at work, a good chunk of their compensation awarded could well be swallowed up by fees.

Although the Government's own impact assesment freely concedes that it "cannot rule out... fees may have the effect of deterring some claimants from bringing a claim", it insists that the policy is not designed to reduce claims, only to transfer some of the cost from taxpayers. Responding to criticism that fees might put poor people off seeking redress, the MoJ points to the Civil Fee Remission scheme, whereby low-earners and those in receipt of state benefits such as Jobseekers Allowance can obtain a full or partial waiver of fees for tribunal proceedings.

Yet the MoJ is already planning major reforms to Civil Fee Remission and, while it has yet to respond to the four-week consultation it issued in the spring, proposals already floated include a tougher means test, a reduction in the number of benefits accepted as proof of entitlement to fee remission in line with the Universal Credit reforms and a 66 per cent reduction in the time limit for retrospective remission claims, from six to two months.

While it won't be clear for some months what the what the final reformed remissions system will look like, someone who qualifies for free access to an Employment Tribunal today might not necessarily make the grade come the autumn.

It's easy to raise the spectre of feckless employees cashing in on an overly-generous system. Indeed, the controversial Beecroft report commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its rabidly "socialist"  Secretary of State Vince Cable, warned of sacked workers with "time on their hands", who view a free employment tribunal "as a no cost option".

Beecroft's report didn't trouble itself with figures - he famously put the cost of red tape to business at a distinctly unscientific "Who knows?" - but here are a few to consider. Since hitting a peak of 236,100 in the wake of financial crash - when presumably there was a sudden spike in chancers with "time on their hands" - the number of claims accepted for consideration by employment tribunals has fallen by a fifth.

Only eight per cent of unfair dismissal claims are successful at hearing, while there was a whopping, er, zero per cent success rate for equal pay claims in 2011-12. Nobody wants British companies to be bogged down with unnecessary costs at a time of economic stagnation, but if this is a system stacked against employers, it's doing a pretty good job of pretending otherwise.

Even the Federation of Small Business, which backs the principle of claimants bearing some of the cost for employment claims, has said it believes that the fee levels introduced today may be too high, while prominent employment lawyers argue that the reforms could actually lead to more litigation because of disputes over fee payment deadlines. 

Meanwhile, the Institute of Employment Rights think tank warns that, when combined with other changes like the legal aid reforms, the doubling of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to two years, the halving of consultation periods for collective redundancies, fees will add to a climate "in which it is extremely difficult for workers to receive compensation and support if they are treated unfairly by their employer." If you're lucky enough to be in work at the moment, that should worry you.

Judges make their way to the Palace of Westminster. Photo: Getty
Getty Images
Show Hide image

Is there such a thing as responsible betting?

Punters are encouraged to bet responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly.

I try not to watch the commercials between matches, or the studio discussions, or anything really, before or after, except for the match itself. And yet there is one person I never manage to escape properly – Ray Winstone. His cracked face, his mesmerising voice, his endlessly repeated spiel follow me across the room as I escape for the lav, the kitchen, the drinks cupboard.

I’m not sure which betting company he is shouting about, there are just so many of them, offering incredible odds and supposedly free bets. In the past six years, since the laws changed, TV betting adverts have increased by 600 per cent, all offering amazingly simple ways to lose money with just one tap on a smartphone.

The one I hate is the ad for BetVictor. The man who has been fronting it, appearing at windows or on roofs, who I assume is Victor, is just so slimy and horrible.

Betting firms are the ultimate football parasites, second in wealth only to kit manufacturers. They have perfected the capitalist’s art of using OPM (Other People’s Money). They’re not directly involved in football – say, in training or managing – yet they make millions off the back of its popularity. Many of the firms are based offshore in Gibraltar.

Football betting is not new. In the Fifties, my job every week at five o’clock was to sit beside my father’s bed, where he lay paralysed with MS, and write down the football results as they were read out on Sports Report. I had not to breathe, make silly remarks or guess the score. By the inflection in the announcer’s voice you could tell if it was an away win.

Earlier in the week I had filled in his Treble Chance on the Littlewoods pools. The “treble” part was because you had three chances: three points if the game you picked was a score draw, two for a goalless draw and one point for a home or away win. You chose eight games and had to reach 24 points, or as near as possible, then you were in the money.

“Not a damn sausage,” my father would say every week, once I’d marked and handed him back his predictions. He never did win a sausage.

Football pools began in the 1920s, the main ones being Littlewoods and Vernons, both based in Liverpool. They gave employment to thousands of bright young women who checked the results and sang in company choirs in their spare time. Each firm spent millions on advertising. In 1935, Littlewoods flew an aeroplane over London with a banner saying: Littlewoods Above All!

Postwar, they blossomed again, taking in £50m a year. The nation stopped at five on a Saturday to hear the scores, whether they were interested in football or not, hoping to get rich. BBC Sports Report began in 1948 with John Webster reading the results. James Alexander Gordon took over in 1974 – a voice soon familiar throughout the land.

These past few decades, football pools have been left behind, old-fashioned, low-tech, replaced by online betting using smartphones. The betting industry has totally rebooted itself. You can bet while the match is still on, trying to predict who will get the next goal, the next corner, the next throw-in. I made the last one up, but in theory you can bet instantly, on anything, at any time.

The soft sell is interesting. With the old football pools, we knew it was a remote flutter, hoping to make some money. Today the ads imply that betting on football somehow enhances the experience, adds to the enjoyment, involves you in the game itself, hence they show lads all together, drinking and laughing and putting on bets.

At the same time, punters are encouraged to do it responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly. Responsibly and respect are now two of the most meaningless words in the football language. People have been gambling, in some form, since the beginning, watching two raindrops drip down inside the cave, lying around in Roman bathhouses playing games. All they’ve done is to change the technology. You have to respect that.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war