Mr Osborne wants to make it more difficult for employees and ex-employees to take their employer to an Employment Tribunal.

This is a response to the perception that it too onerous for many employers to have to deal with employment law claims made by employees that have no merit or little merit.

Whilst now law has been processed yet it seems that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will go from one year to two years. That is not surprising and perhaps more surprising is that it took this long to propose it.

The more controversial element perhaps is the introduction of charges to make a claim and a further charge to actually have an Employment Tribunal hearing. Figures of £250 and £1,000 respectively have been bandied about.

This may well put off some people from making claims that they themselves see as marginal and the fee to have a hearing might well concentrate the mind of the ‘plaintiff’ as well.

However, this may not have the impact that it first promises. It is almost inconceivable that claimants on qualifying benefit will have to pay any such fees and also may people get representation via Trade Unions and may not be put off very easily.

Perhaps the big one is that discrimination claims do not have a qualifying period at all. Claims can be made under anti-discrimination law at any time even before someone is actually employed. It will be interesting to see reactions to any fees put in place that may prevent those who feel aggrieved by discrimination at work.

The devil is always in the detail and we all wait to see what actually emerges as new legislation and what impact it will have on the number of cases going before the Employment Tribunal

From the time that criminal law matters were allowed to be dealt with under the direct access scheme the situation was understood to be that if a person who may get Legal Aid chose not to do so it was perfectly OK to represent that person if he had been informed of his ability to apply for Legal and then stated he did not want to apply.

This seems perfectly sensible as for a certain group of potential direct access clients paying for the barrister direct was preferable to paying a Legal aid contribution.

The rule is now that the only test is eligibility to apply for Legal Aid.

So as it stands a person is forced into seeking public funding in a situation where he doesn’t want it.

That seems a strange way of dealing with the public purse and in general terms a strange way of directing how someone must seek representation.

In the past a Barrister would always be instructed by a Solicitor, so whilst a client may have an idea bout a particular Barrister they would like involved this was not such a common occurrence.  So for most people a barrister would appear in the case and then ‘take charge’ in effect.

If someone instructs a Direct Accesss Barrister the choice is made by the client and the whole process would have been built between the client and the Barrister from start to finish. This will no doubt make it easier fro the client to make a good choice and be happy that they have instructed the right person for the job.