Earlier this year the government hosted a reception at Lancaster House in order to celebrate the 30th anniversary of industrial tribunals.

Speaking at the reception, Ian Lang, the president of the Board of Trade, noted that tribunals had made impressive efficiency gains over the last few years but that their case loads continued to increase.In the foreword to the Consultation Document and draft Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill recently issued, Mr Lang repeated these sentiments and stated that there was a case for reform of the tribunal system.The increase in the case load of industrial tribunals has not simply been due to an increase in legislation.

The latest annual report of the Association of Conciliation and Arbitration Services (ACAS) noted record numbers of employment cases being handled by ACAS during 1995, and also noted the willingness of employees to use the law to enforce their individual rights.

ACAS officers detected a greater use by trade unions of individual rights legislation and said the development of European case law and legislation was a factor in the growth.The workplace is also changing.

For example:-- the demise of 'jobs for life';-- today 24% of employees work part time and this number, of which women form 47%, is set to rise to 7.3 million during the next five years;-- temporary and contract work have increased;-- self-employment is rising;-- employment patterns vary between regions;-- trade union membership has fallen;-- the age of the working population is increasing.How will employment law respond to these challenges and, in particular, who will advise on employment law issues? More importantly, is the legal profession prepared for these changes? The government has proposed that, where employment claims are capable of settlement by a compromise agreement, the qualifying sources of advice on such agreements should be extended.

Currently, parties to an individual employment rights dispute may settle that dispute either after an ACAS conciliation officer has taken action or by entering into a private 'compromise agreement' provided that the employee has received independent advice from a qualified lawyer.

The government proposes that any indepen dent person may provide such advice provided that the advice is covered by a policy of insurance to cover the risk of negligent advice.

The government's informal soundings have suggested that this proposal would be welcomed.

However, this may not be in the public interest.

Whilst advisers may carry insurance they may not have complaints procedures, continuous training obligations, knowledge of other areas of the law, advocacy skills or the support of fellow practitioners.Alternative approaches both to the giving of advice and the resolution of disputes are apparent in other areas of employment law.

For example, the government also proposes to allow parties to a tribunal claim to opt for their dispute to be resolved by independent binding arbitration and to grant ACAS powers to pay for and provide arbitration for claims of unfair dismissal.

The aim is to produce a quicker, cheaper, more private and more informal hearing than a tribunal hearing.

While lawyers may participate in such hearings, the implication is that legal language and solutions will be discouraged.So far as the arbitrators are concerned, one recent US study, 'An analysis of the selection of arbitrators' by DE Bloom and CL Cavanagh in American Economic Review 76: 408-22, suggested that employers prefer arbitrators with formal training in economics to lawyers.

Trade unionists prefer lawyers.There is an increasing emphasis on the establishment of codes in relation to many aspects of working life.

The recent Fabian Society report entitled 'Changing work' (July 1996), proposes that there should be a code of good employment practice.

The report urges that a statement of basic rights and responsibilities should be appended to every employment contract.In the area of consultation in the workplace, European developments and the arrival of the new breed of non-unionised, elected employee representative have caused employers to re-evaluate the manner in which employee consultation is conducted.

Finally, increased emphasis on health and safety has made employees more aware of the strains which work can place on them and the statutory remedies available to them.

Whether or not there is a change in government, employment protection rights will not reduce.

Rather, they are more likely to spread to unregulated areas and, in the case of discrimination law, embrace sections of the community hitherto unprotected by the law.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, most of which is due to come into force in December 1996, represents a major example of this trend.Given the increased complexity of employment law, the growing demand for advice and the increased formality of legal proceedings, it is not surprising that the Fabian Society report concludes: 'The legal profession needs to act urgently to improve the standards of practice in employment law and ensure that the expertise available within the profession matches the explosion in the number of cases that has taken place in recent years .

.

.

a service tailored to the needs of small employers would be of value.' Employment lawyers ignore this warning at their peril.