Opinion: Thames Water makes case for renationalisation … now!

By UNISON’s head of environment, Donna Rowe-Merriman

Shadowy overseas private equity firms have sucked all the good out of Thames Water and saddled it with billions of pounds of debt. So reports that it is scrambling to find extra cash, after handing out millions of pounds to shareholders and bonuses to top bosses in recent years, are hardly surprising.

Even its shareholders won’t keep it afloat, having refused to pay £500m by the end of the month, saying regulatory requirements make its business plan “uninvestable”, and insisting that bills must go up – company boss Chris Weston told the BBC today that they need to rise by 40%.

It’s clear that the business model for Thames Water has failed and the company is unviable.

The company is privately owned by a mix of people and businesses. The consortium of pension funds and sovereign wealth funds owns the entire business. The largest shareholder, as of July 2023, is the Canadian pension fund Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (Omers) with approximately 32%.

Mr Weston also stated that it was “business as usual” at the company. The business appears to be lurching from one crisis to another, leaving staff with an uncertain future and customers facing ever more massive bills.

In the 21st century, the issue of water pollution is a national disgrace. The government and regulator have failed to stop water companies to pollute our rivers, canals and coastline.

Saturday’s Boat Race organisers have issued new safety guidance for the races, warning rowers not to enter the water and to cover any open wounds, after high levels of E.coli bacteria were found on the River Thames course.

Provision of water should never have been privatised, allowing millions to be taken out of the industry to line the pockets of shareholders and company executives, while infrastructure was allowed to crumble.

The government must intervene and take control of a business and renationalise Thames Water and now.

The article Opinion: Thames Water makes case for renationalisation … now! first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Opinion: Thames Water makes case for renationalisation … now!

By UNISON’s head of environment, Donna Rowe-Merriman

Shadowy overseas private equity firms have sucked all the good out of Thames Water and saddled it with billions of pounds of debt. So reports that it is scrambling to find extra cash, after handing out millions of pounds to shareholders and bonuses to top bosses in recent years, are hardly surprising.

Even its shareholders won’t keep it afloat, having refused to pay £500m by the end of the month, saying regulatory requirements make its business plan “uninvestable”, and insisting that bills must go up – company boss Chris Weston told the BBC today that they need to rise by 40%.

It’s clear that the business model for Thames Water has failed and the company is unviable.

The company is privately owned by a mix of people and businesses. The consortium of pension funds and sovereign wealth funds owns the entire business. The largest shareholder, as of July 2023, is the Canadian pension fund Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (Omers) with approximately 32%.

Mr Weston also stated that it was “business as usual” at the company. The business appears to be lurching from one crisis to another, leaving staff with an uncertain future and customers facing ever more massive bills.

In the 21st century, the issue of water pollution is a national disgrace. The government and regulator have failed to stop water companies to pollute our rivers, canals and coastline.

Saturday’s Boat Race organisers have issued new safety guidance for the races, warning rowers not to enter the water and to cover any open wounds, after high levels of E.coli bacteria were found on the River Thames course.

Provision of water should never have been privatised, allowing millions to be taken out of the industry to line the pockets of shareholders and company executives, while infrastructure was allowed to crumble.

The government must intervene and take control of a business and renationalise Thames Water and now.

The article Opinion: Thames Water makes case for renationalisation … now! first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Opinion: Why the fight for Waspi pension justice is far from over

By UNISON’s senior national equality officer Josie Irwin

A whole generation of women has been badly let down by politicians.

Changes to pension law in 1995 and 2011 delayed the state pension age for 1950s-born women by up to six years. Many received information about the change with just one year’s notice. Some received no notification. An estimated 3.8 million women waited up to six years longer to receive the state pension.

Last Thursday (23 March), the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported that the Department of Work and Pensions had failed to communicate the changes adequately and recommended that Parliament should make things right by providing compensation of amounts between £1,000 and £2,900.

Is £3,000 enough? It seems a paltry sum given the dire financial straits that many of these women are in through no fault of their own. They were caught by surprise, their plans for retirement thrown into disarray with no time for them to make alternative arrangements.

Denied their state pension at age 60, some were forced to look for work again to make ends meet, but struggled to get jobs because of their age, physical or mental health issues, or because they had caring commitments. Others had to dig into the savings they had intended to use to ensure their retirement was comfortable.

Women who were in low-paid jobs – cleaners, teaching assistants, school administrators, cooks and catering staff, nurses and receptionists, or took time out to care for children – have been particularly badly affected.

Financial hardship has been made so much worse by the cost of living crisis, compelling some women to choose between buying food or paying for heating. Some have had to sell their homes to survive and have endured appalling poverty.

UNISON was the first union to support the cause of pension justice for 1950s-born women and is supporting thousands of women with individual claims for compensation as well as campaigning alongside women in the Waspi campaign for justice and lobbying parliamentarians.

Despite the damning ombudsman’s report, Waspiwomen still face hurdles however. So far, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have committed to paying the compensation.

Additionally, some print and social media commentators are questioning whether “these women have really been so hard done by?” They infer that, “as women have greater life expectancy than men and typically collect the state pension for longer”, they shouldn’t receive compensation.

Others talk about “the gold-plated final salary pensions” many will have been able to draw on. They mention welfare benefits that those who were unable to work would have been able to draw on.

Some financial experts – mainly but not exclusively male – are condescending, stating that the Waspi women should have known about the change, with an unspoken question being: ‘How could they have been so stupid?’ There is also a hint that the Waspi women are ‘greedy’ for wanting compensation that could run into billions.

This is despite the ombudsman highlighting that the Department of Work and Pensions failed to act on its own survey findings from around 2004, which showed that 1950s-born women still thought they would receive their state pension at 60.

The lack of sympathy toward the Waspi women and hostility from some quarters is shocking but not surprising. Society continues to undervalue the work that women do and takes their contribution for granted.

Our campaign is far from over. UNISON supports Waspi’s call for an urgent vote in Parliament on compensation. We will continue to speak out, about both the failure to communicate the change and the resulting hardship for so many women. 1950s women need swift action, not more excuses.

The article Opinion: Why the fight for Waspi pension justice is far from over first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Opinion: Why the fight for Waspi pension justice is far from over

By UNISON’s senior national equality officer Josie Irwin

A whole generation of women has been badly let down by politicians.

Changes to pension law in 1995 and 2011 delayed the state pension age for 1950s-born women by up to six years. Many received information about the change with just one year’s notice. Some received no notification. An estimated 3.8 million women waited up to six years longer to receive the state pension.

Last Thursday (23 March), the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported that the Department of Work and Pensions had failed to communicate the changes adequately and recommended that Parliament should make things right by providing compensation of amounts between £1,000 and £2,900.

Is £3,000 enough? It seems a paltry sum given the dire financial straits that many of these women are in through no fault of their own. They were caught by surprise, their plans for retirement thrown into disarray with no time for them to make alternative arrangements.

Denied their state pension at age 60, some were forced to look for work again to make ends meet, but struggled to get jobs because of their age, physical or mental health issues, or because they had caring commitments. Others had to dig into the savings they had intended to use to ensure their retirement was comfortable.

Women who were in low-paid jobs – cleaners, teaching assistants, school administrators, cooks and catering staff, nurses and receptionists, or took time out to care for children – have been particularly badly affected.

Financial hardship has been made so much worse by the cost of living crisis, compelling some women to choose between buying food or paying for heating. Some have had to sell their homes to survive and have endured appalling poverty.

UNISON was the first union to support the cause of pension justice for 1950s-born women and is supporting thousands of women with individual claims for compensation as well as campaigning alongside women in the Waspi campaign for justice and lobbying parliamentarians.

Despite the damning ombudsman’s report, Waspiwomen still face hurdles however. So far, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have committed to paying the compensation.

Additionally, some print and social media commentators are questioning whether “these women have really been so hard done by?” They infer that, “as women have greater life expectancy than men and typically collect the state pension for longer”, they shouldn’t receive compensation.

Others talk about “the gold-plated final salary pensions” many will have been able to draw on. They mention welfare benefits that those who were unable to work would have been able to draw on.

Some financial experts – mainly but not exclusively male – are condescending, stating that the Waspi women should have known about the change, with an unspoken question being: ‘How could they have been so stupid?’ There is also a hint that the Waspi women are ‘greedy’ for wanting compensation that could run into billions.

This is despite the ombudsman highlighting that the Department of Work and Pensions failed to act on its own survey findings from around 2004, which showed that 1950s-born women still thought they would receive their state pension at 60.

The lack of sympathy toward the Waspi women and hostility from some quarters is shocking but not surprising. Society continues to undervalue the work that women do and takes their contribution for granted.

Our campaign is far from over. UNISON supports Waspi’s call for an urgent vote in Parliament on compensation. We will continue to speak out, about both the failure to communicate the change and the resulting hardship for so many women. 1950s women need swift action, not more excuses.

The article Opinion: Why the fight for Waspi pension justice is far from over first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Let’s talk about flex

By UNISON acting head of health and chair of the NHS Staff Council, Helga Pile

The right to request flexible working from day one of employment.

Every request considered fairly – whatever the role, whatever the reason.

These were the rights secured by the NHS Staff Council back in 2021 for everyone employed by the NHS.

There was huge willingness around the table to get them in place, because unions, employers and members all know what a positive difference flexible working can make. From April, even more people will benefit as the Flexible Working Act takes effect.

So far, so good.

But despite all the goodwill and evidence, we’re not making as much use of flex as we could or should be.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll know that the health service is under unprecedented pressure.

Workloads are high. Resource is low. Members tell us they are stressed, they have no work-life balance, and their wellbeing is suffering.

The story is backed up by the data, with over 120,000 vacancies across the health service and people leaving in their thousands due to a lack of work-life balance.

So while we need to continue banging the drum for better investment in the NHS, it’s important that we think about how we can improve the situation in the here and now.

Thinking more creatively

If we can build on the examples and creative thinking that are already out there, flexible working has the potential to be a game-changer for the NHS.

Employers who have been able to break out of take-it-or-leave-it shift patterns and the ‘full time equivalent’ box for roles are tapping into a huge flexible workforce to fill vacancies. They are also creating a better working environment so people can stay and thrive in their roles.

Through this campaign, we’re hoping to make more people aware of the many ways that flex can work for you, your team – and ultimately for patients.

We want to provide staff and managers alike with the inspiration and tools to get started, as well as equip them to challenge outdated thinking, poor culture and practice around flex when it happens.

Achieving the win-win

There are few better ways for employers and managers to support staff than by actively encouraging and promoting flexible working.

Case studies from the NHS and elsewhere have shown that redesigning roles and processes to be more flexible has led to not only happier staff (with more autonomy and a better work-life balance), but also increased efficiency and safer working practices.

By embracing flex in the NHS, we are setting ourselves on the path to a happier, healthier workforce and a better service for patients.

So, let’s #TalkAboutFlex

  • Let’s talk about flex is a campaign from the joint NHS unions.

The article UNISON opinion: Let’s talk about flex first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Let’s talk about flex

By UNISON acting head of health and chair of the NHS Staff Council, Helga Pile

The right to request flexible working from day one of employment.

Every request considered fairly – whatever the role, whatever the reason.

These were the rights secured by the NHS Staff Council back in 2021 for everyone employed by the NHS.

There was huge willingness around the table to get them in place, because unions, employers and members all know what a positive difference flexible working can make. From April, even more people will benefit as the Flexible Working Act takes effect.

So far, so good.

But despite all the goodwill and evidence, we’re not making as much use of flex as we could or should be.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll know that the health service is under unprecedented pressure.

Workloads are high. Resource is low. Members tell us they are stressed, they have no work-life balance, and their wellbeing is suffering.

The story is backed up by the data, with over 120,000 vacancies across the health service and people leaving in their thousands due to a lack of work-life balance.

So while we need to continue banging the drum for better investment in the NHS, it’s important that we think about how we can improve the situation in the here and now.

Thinking more creatively

If we can build on the examples and creative thinking that are already out there, flexible working has the potential to be a game-changer for the NHS.

Employers who have been able to break out of take-it-or-leave-it shift patterns and the ‘full time equivalent’ box for roles are tapping into a huge flexible workforce to fill vacancies. They are also creating a better working environment so people can stay and thrive in their roles.

Through this campaign, we’re hoping to make more people aware of the many ways that flex can work for you, your team – and ultimately for patients.

We want to provide staff and managers alike with the inspiration and tools to get started, as well as equip them to challenge outdated thinking, poor culture and practice around flex when it happens.

Achieving the win-win

There are few better ways for employers and managers to support staff than by actively encouraging and promoting flexible working.

Case studies from the NHS and elsewhere have shown that redesigning roles and processes to be more flexible has led to not only happier staff (with more autonomy and a better work-life balance), but also increased efficiency and safer working practices.

By embracing flex in the NHS, we are setting ourselves on the path to a happier, healthier workforce and a better service for patients.

So, let’s #TalkAboutFlex

  • Let’s talk about flex is a campaign from the joint NHS unions.

The article UNISON opinion: Let’s talk about flex first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Why councils are on the brink – and how they can be pulled back

By UNISON’s head of local government Mike Short

Local government is in the news. But not for the right reasons.

The Daily Mail asks “Is your council about to go bust?”, the Mirror tells us that every single local authority, bar one, is experiencing cuts to funding and the Guardian reports that councils are resorting to crowdfunding to maintain their schools.

We hear about the youth clubs that have closed and the Christmas lights that won’t be switched on. Each day there’s news that another council can’t balance the books, more services are being cut or closed down and jobs are on the line.

And every single cut and closure has an impact.

It’s not surprising that councils are on the brink of bankruptcy. They’ve faced thirteen years of significant reductions to their funding.

By 2019 councils had 41% less government income than they did in 2010, all this while demand for services is growing.

There are more people who need social care, more young people who need extra support in schools, more people who don’t even have a home to live in.

UNISON’s research shows the extent of these cuts. Over a thousand council-operated youth centres have closed. Even more council operated children and family centres have closed since 2010.

Around 800 council libraries have closed. Each of these represents a place where people could find support, advice and information, places to learn, create social connections. With violent crime soaring and vaccination rates dropping youth centres and family centres are more, not less, important than ever before.

UNISON has a vision for local government. Good local government should be the foundation of a good society, ensuring that each neighbourhood has the facilities and amenities for a decent quality of life.

We need well-maintained roads and pavements, well-lit streets to help ensure safety at night, parks and playgrounds, leisure centres and libraries for everyone to access regardless of income and age.

Local government should be based on democracy, run by local politicians who can be held accountable for the services in their area.

Good local government can make such a difference – support for the most disadvantaged and isolated like day centres for the elderly and disabled, holiday schemes for young people, advice for refugees and refuges for survivors of domestic violence.

That is why UNISON is prioritising our campaign for better local government. We are calling for local authorities across the whole of the UK, to be well funded by central government, so that they are to be able to provide the high quality services that we all need in our communities.

Councils should be able to employ people doing this valuable work on secure, decent, well-paid contracts so that they are valued, recognised and well-rewarded for the important work they do.

Local government is the key to creating a sustainable and fairer future – to greening our towns, to reaching net-zero targets through insulation, better public transport and waste – and ensuring that regional disparity is a thing of the past. It’s the key to creating inclusive communities – ones in which young people can develop and thrive.

If you value these services then please write to your MP, MSP or Senedd member to call for more urgently needed council funding via our campaign action site.

The article UNISON opinion: Why councils are on the brink – and how they can be pulled back first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Why councils are on the brink – and how they can be pulled back

By UNISON’s head of local government Mike Short

Local government is in the news. But not for the right reasons.

The Daily Mail asks “Is your council about to go bust?”, the Mirror tells us that every single local authority, bar one, is experiencing cuts to funding and the Guardian reports that councils are resorting to crowdfunding to maintain their schools.

We hear about the youth clubs that have closed and the Christmas lights that won’t be switched on. Each day there’s news that another council can’t balance the books, more services are being cut or closed down and jobs are on the line.

And every single cut and closure has an impact.

It’s not surprising that councils are on the brink of bankruptcy. They’ve faced thirteen years of significant reductions to their funding.

By 2019 councils had 41% less government income than they did in 2010, all this while demand for services is growing.

There are more people who need social care, more young people who need extra support in schools, more people who don’t even have a home to live in.

UNISON’s research shows the extent of these cuts. Over a thousand council-operated youth centres have closed. Even more council operated children and family centres have closed since 2010.

Around 800 council libraries have closed. Each of these represents a place where people could find support, advice and information, places to learn, create social connections. With violent crime soaring and vaccination rates dropping youth centres and family centres are more, not less, important than ever before.

UNISON has a vision for local government. Good local government should be the foundation of a good society, ensuring that each neighbourhood has the facilities and amenities for a decent quality of life.

We need well-maintained roads and pavements, well-lit streets to help ensure safety at night, parks and playgrounds, leisure centres and libraries for everyone to access regardless of income and age.

Local government should be based on democracy, run by local politicians who can be held accountable for the services in their area.

Good local government can make such a difference – support for the most disadvantaged and isolated like day centres for the elderly and disabled, holiday schemes for young people, advice for refugees and refuges for survivors of domestic violence.

That is why UNISON is prioritising our campaign for better local government. We are calling for local authorities across the whole of the UK, to be well funded by central government, so that they are to be able to provide the high quality services that we all need in our communities.

Councils should be able to employ people doing this valuable work on secure, decent, well-paid contracts so that they are valued, recognised and well-rewarded for the important work they do.

Local government is the key to creating a sustainable and fairer future – to greening our towns, to reaching net-zero targets through insulation, better public transport and waste – and ensuring that regional disparity is a thing of the past. It’s the key to creating inclusive communities – ones in which young people can develop and thrive.

If you value these services then please write to your MP, MSP or Senedd member to call for more urgently needed council funding via our campaign action site.

The article UNISON opinion: Why councils are on the brink – and how they can be pulled back first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back?

by UNISON’s head of legal services Shantha David

The government is consulting on reintroducing fees in the employment tribunals (ETs). If this becomes law, employees and workers will have to pay a single fee of £55 – whether they are bringing the case by themselves or as part of a group – when seeking to enforce their employment rights against their employer.

An appeal to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) by the party challenging an ET decision will also attract a fee of £55.

Employment tribunals – or industrial tribunals as they were known until 1998 – were set up in the 1970s to provide employees and workers with an informal and accessible forum for the enforcement of employment rights.

Employment law has developed considerably since the inception of the industrial tribunals, and the ET and EAT have jurisdiction to determine more than 70 types of employment claim. Each party has had to bear their own legal costs and these new proposals will not change that.

Unfortunately, the burden of fees to challenge an employer still rests on the shoulders of the worker/employee, even where they are successful. The ability of the winning party to recoup their fee, or indeed the costs of pursuing (or defending) a claim, is a missed opportunity.

Before fees were introduced in 2013, the ETs registered 59,000 cases (individual or multiple claims) in 2012/13. This dropped to 28,000 cases in the following year. After the Supreme Court quashed the fees order, the number of cases increased from 18,000 in 2016/17 to 33,000 cases in 2022/23. Interestingly, case numbers remain below pre-fee levels.

Under the previous regime, fees ranged from £160 to £1,600. Fees were challenged in the courts by UNISON and, following a four-year legal battle – when ET claims dropped by about 69% – the Supreme Court agreed that the unaffordable fees order breached the constitutional right of access to the courts, which was essential to the rule of law and was guaranteed by Magna Carta.

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London in 2018 with then general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London. United Kingdom

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London with general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London.

The court ordered the government to reimburse about £35m in fees paid by claimants. To date, only £18.6m in fees and interest has actually been refunded, according to HM Courts & Tribunal Service’s annual report for 2022-23.

Given the government’s previous experience of ET fees, the Ministry of Justice has admitted that the 2013 scheme struck the wrong balance between recouping the costs of running the service and protecting access to justice. When fees were in place, the annual cost of running the ETs and EATS was £65.8m. Costs for 2022-23 totalled £80m.

This time around, the ministry has stated that its rationale for fees in the ET and EAT is “to relieve some of the cost to the general taxpayer by requiring tribunal users to pay for the tribunal system, where they can afford to do so”.

There is to be help with the fees scheme – the lord chancellor will have an exceptional power to remit fees. It is worth noting, however, that this exceptional power was exercised only 31 times between 2015-16, when some 86,130 individual claims (note – not cases) were presented.

In summary then, is it really worth the time and effort of recruiting additional administrative staff to collect fees? Particularly at a time when there are administrative shortages at the ET and EAT, and calls and emails are still being left unanswered.

The new fee regime is forecast to generate £1.3m-£1.7m a year from 2025-26 onwards, with an estimated income of £0.6m-£0.7m from implementation in November 2024 to March 2025.

The consultation does not indicate if these are net or gross sums. Assuming they are net, then this new scheme will only cover only about 1%-2% of the total costs of running the tribunals. What is the point of the scheme, then, other than to be (once more) an impediment to access to justice?

This article first appeared in the Law Society Gazette

The article UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back? first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back?

by UNISON’s head of legal services Shantha David

The government is consulting on reintroducing fees in the employment tribunals (ETs). If this becomes law, employees and workers will have to pay a single fee of £55 – whether they are bringing the case by themselves or as part of a group – when seeking to enforce their employment rights against their employer.

An appeal to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) by the party challenging an ET decision will also attract a fee of £55.

Employment tribunals – or industrial tribunals as they were known until 1998 – were set up in the 1970s to provide employees and workers with an informal and accessible forum for the enforcement of employment rights.

Employment law has developed considerably since the inception of the industrial tribunals, and the ET and EAT have jurisdiction to determine more than 70 types of employment claim. Each party has had to bear their own legal costs and these new proposals will not change that.

Unfortunately, the burden of fees to challenge an employer still rests on the shoulders of the worker/employee, even where they are successful. The ability of the winning party to recoup their fee, or indeed the costs of pursuing (or defending) a claim, is a missed opportunity.

Before fees were introduced in 2013, the ETs registered 59,000 cases (individual or multiple claims) in 2012/13. This dropped to 28,000 cases in the following year. After the Supreme Court quashed the fees order, the number of cases increased from 18,000 in 2016/17 to 33,000 cases in 2022/23. Interestingly, case numbers remain below pre-fee levels.

Under the previous regime, fees ranged from £160 to £1,600. Fees were challenged in the courts by UNISON and, following a four-year legal battle – when ET claims dropped by about 69% – the Supreme Court agreed that the unaffordable fees order breached the constitutional right of access to the courts, which was essential to the rule of law and was guaranteed by Magna Carta.

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London in 2018 with then general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London. United Kingdom

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London with general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London.

The court ordered the government to reimburse about £35m in fees paid by claimants. To date, only £18.6m in fees and interest has actually been refunded, according to HM Courts & Tribunal Service’s annual report for 2022-23.

Given the government’s previous experience of ET fees, the Ministry of Justice has admitted that the 2013 scheme struck the wrong balance between recouping the costs of running the service and protecting access to justice. When fees were in place, the annual cost of running the ETs and EATS was £65.8m. Costs for 2022-23 totalled £80m.

This time around, the ministry has stated that its rationale for fees in the ET and EAT is “to relieve some of the cost to the general taxpayer by requiring tribunal users to pay for the tribunal system, where they can afford to do so”.

There is to be help with the fees scheme – the lord chancellor will have an exceptional power to remit fees. It is worth noting, however, that this exceptional power was exercised only 31 times between 2015-16, when some 86,130 individual claims (note – not cases) were presented.

In summary then, is it really worth the time and effort of recruiting additional administrative staff to collect fees? Particularly at a time when there are administrative shortages at the ET and EAT, and calls and emails are still being left unanswered.

The new fee regime is forecast to generate £1.3m-£1.7m a year from 2025-26 onwards, with an estimated income of £0.6m-£0.7m from implementation in November 2024 to March 2025.

The consultation does not indicate if these are net or gross sums. Assuming they are net, then this new scheme will only cover only about 1%-2% of the total costs of running the tribunals. What is the point of the scheme, then, other than to be (once more) an impediment to access to justice?

This article first appeared in the Law Society Gazette

The article UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back? first appeared on the UNISON National site.