The repeal of the Compensation Act 2006 which makes it an offence for a paid representative other than a solicitor or barrister to represent claimants at employment tribunals. This restricts claimants' choice as to who they can have to represent them. Most claimants, who may have lost their jobs which is why they are making claims to employment tribunals, find it too expensive to employ solicitors or barristers to represent them. Paid non-lawyers representatives can appear for claimants at employment tribunal but they have to obtain an expensive licence from the Quango that supervise these lay representatives and, in addition, these paid representatives – many of whom represent claimants on a 'no win, no fee' basis – have to pay a high yearly fee that goes to maintain the totally unnecessary Quango. Previously, the employment tribunal system operated efficiently for over 35 years without this form of unnecessary and restrictive regulation.
The essential points are: abolish the Quango and the supervisory regime; by doing that claimants will have greater choice of representatives; this would lower the cost of employment tribunal representation; it would also break the 'dock labour' style monopoly of work in this area of the law in which the work is mainly restricted to solicitors and barristers which was the main (albeit covert) reason for enacting the Compensation Act 2006.
Why does this idea matter?