The government has been convinced by the criticism it received from employers’ organisations about the complexity and cost of managing disputes.

Employment law is seen as a significant aspect of the regulatory burden restricting business and fuller employment.

Laws made to encourage fairness and end discrimination are regarded as an enemy to growth.

This aspect has been stressed because it emphasises a major weakness in the consultation.

Employment tribunals were originally intended to be a cheap and informal forum to resolve all employment disputes.

To do this they incorporated expertise from both sides of industry in the shape of lay members. That was more than 50 years ago.

We now live in a more complicated and a much more regulated world.

There have been many other reviews and investigations of tribunals in that time, most ignored by this consultation.

All of those exercises recognised the changes occurring and frequently had to answer charges of excessive legalism.

Without exception, no one suggested that tribunals should ever be the same as courts, or moving away from a vision of tribunals as something distinct from ordinary courts.

The problem with this consultation is its singular idea that tribunals are a burden, and there is no identification of what is worth preserving.

The proposals concentrate principally on how employment tribunals operate and mechanisms for conciliation.

There were also some headline legal changes proposed, such as a two-year qualification period for unfair dismissal and fining employers who breach their obligations.

ELA believes the two-year period for unfair dismissal is unlikely to affect recruitment decisions.

Cutting off access is, however, likely to encourage more artificial claims for discrimination and whistle blowing.

The proposal to fine employers seems an ineffective deterrent, when compared with the maximum award for unfair dismissal.

Proposals for compulsory submission of claims to ACAS, coupled with offers of pre-claim conciliation, attracted a favourable response.

However, there was anxiety that, in the current climate, adequate resources would not be applied to enable ACAS to perform this task effectively.

Proposals to strengthen powers to strike out claims and order deposits were broadly welcomed.

ELA thought this could be done at any stage in the proceedings but deplored the idea that such sanctions be applied without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

Again, this reveals an absence of a sense of what the ethos of tribunals should be.

ELA rejected outright the suggestion that if a wasted costs order was made it should include the costs of running the tribunal.

If such a power is created, we need to add a right for parties to recover wasted costs from HM Courts and Tribunals Service when inefficiency by tribunals leads to parties incurring cost.

The association thought it unnecessary to increase the power of tribunals to order costs above the existing cap of £20,000, given that the current median award is £2,228.

We were more favourably disposed towards the increased use of Calderbank-like processes, but believed this would take time to have any impact.

On the suggestion that witness statements be taken as read to save time, ELA opposed any blanket rule being applied.

Tribunals should be encouraged to exercise discretion taking into account the capacity of unrepresented parties to cope.

They also may prefer on occasions to form their own view of whether the witness statement was more the work of the adviser than the witness.

The suggestion that judges sitting alone should hear unfair dismissal cases was also rejected.

Leaving the decision about what is or is not fair is not best left to a judge sitting alone if you want to avoid legalism.

It is also an attack on the distinctive character of the employment tribunal.

Stephen Levinson, solicitor and partner at RadcliffesLeBrasseur, is a member of ELA’s legislative and policy committee