Surely the taxpayer is entitled to ask that those who enter into commercial contracts in the widest sense (including, for instance, construction contracts and commercial leases) should bear the costs of resolving disputes arising out of those contracts (see [2004] Gazette, 8 January, 16).

Moreover, most people would regard arbitration as an essential and, from the aspect of protecting the public purse, cost-effective method of resolving many of those disputes, insofar as they really cannot be disposed of by negotiation, alternative dispute resolution or summary procedures such as adjudication.

The courts have a vital role to play in expounding the law which forms the essential background to dispute resolution; factual disputes are often best left to skilled arbitrators.

Before embarking on a massive construction project, the Department of Constitutional Affairs should look closely at the possibility of integrating arbitration into the court scheme.

It will need careful research and thought if any such integrated methodology is to succeed, but, given the scarcity of public funds that might better be deployed in, for instance, repairing the crumbling legal aid system so that it can meet the demands of the increase in litigation relating to the public sector, it might produce dividends.

GG Dron, solicitor, Bolton