What is an employment lawyer to make of Martin Mears' Birmingham speech? He accused some ind ustrial tribunals of being willingly hijacked by something called 'the discrimination industry'; presumably he meant the anti-discrimination industry.

It was an abuse, he said, for a sensitive Irishman to be handed £30,000 of public money to soothe his hurt feelings.

This was an example of a 'racket' which had given politicians the excuse they needed to keep legal aid away from those seeking to pursue reasonable unfair dismissal claims.

Tribunals, whilst essentially beneficial, were in danger of discrediting themselves.

Preposterous applications had been supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, and the time had come for these bodies to 'have their wings clipped'.

It was to be considered whether they had 'outlived their usefulness' because it was 'arguable' that they created divisions in society.

The first obligation of any lawyer is to check facts.

One is, therefore, irritated to find that the Irishman, Alan Bryans, did not collect £30,000 for 'hurt feelings'.

The award included a large amount for economic loss and interest.

As for the money being 'public money' -- in this case a college funded by the Education Funding Council -- does Mr Mears suggest that public-sector employers should pay less than private-sector employers just because the taxpayer pays the bills? Mr Mears also ignored the fact that a large proportion of the award was made jointly and severally against four private individuals as well as the employer.Green form money has always been available to prepare cases for tribunals.

But, governments, both Conservative and Labour, have since the 1970s steadfastly refused to allow legal aid for advocacy.

The excuses that have always been given are the expense and the no-costs rule that generally prevails, not the tiny proportion of 'preposterous' discrimination cases.

If recent events are really the cause of the resistance why has the Lord Chancellor only just raised the prospect of legal aid in tribunals? Any experienced tribunal advocate or chairman could tell Mr Mears about 'preposterous' applications for unfair dismissal, entirely untainted by any element of discrimination.

The contrast made between reasonable unfair dismissal cases (good) and preposterous race claims (bad) is a distortion, given that discrimination cases of all kinds make up such a small proportion of the tribunal caseload.

Mr Mears followed his purple passages with a statement of his intention to seek re-election when his present term of office ends.

He is entitled to do so.

But employment lawyers, considering their voting intentions for the next year, are also entitled to reflect on the way in which their area of practice has been held up to ridicule and contempt.

That is what his speech has done.The law seeks to protect those who suffer discrimination at work and many solicitors are involved in resolving those disputes.

Difficult points of law and fact arise in these cases and there are serious personal consequences for the individuals involved.

The lawyers acting in these cases do not deserve to be demeaned by jibes and inaccurate labels.

There is no 'discrimination industry' any more than there is a 'house industry'.

Employment lawyers deserve more respect.