We are about to enter a new experiment with the UK economy that is likely to have significant effects for employment lawyers. The late 1990s and most of the 2000s saw a huge increase in employment rights. They were collectively known as ‘the good old days’, and you can still see QCs, partners and other senior lawyers go all misty-eyed at the memory instead, dabbing tears away as they regale you with tales of monthly seminars to clients just to cope with the tidal wave of new legislation; huge numbers of employment tribunal claims to deal with; TUPE being an almost cult-like part of employment law; and the taking on of several newly qualified lawyers and barristers each year just to keep up with demand.

Then along came sub-prime mortgages, credit default swaps and derivatives. This resulted in the credit crunch and then a full-blown financial crisis. Governments attempted to clamp down on their ever-growing deficits and we entered the age of austerity.

That these economic circumstances led to a period of recession is not in doubt. One only needs to look through the economic growth figures from 2008 onwards to see several quarters of contraction. At the time, there were dire predictions of mass unemployment, which would last for years to come. In fact, the UK economy proved remarkably resilient in keeping unemployment low. The number of people in work has remained at record levels, with the unemployment rate falling to levels not seen since the early 1970s.

The reasons for this are contested. Some argue that scaling back employment rights, such as restricting qualifying periods, compensation and access to redress, encouraged business to retain and employ people. Others argue that high immigration and a relatively liberal economy created a framework for work. Perhaps a combination of changes to social security and the so-called ‘gig economy’ were also factors. What is clear is that the balance between employers’ and workers’ interests tilted in favour of the former.

What we see now is something different. Economic challenges lie ahead. Coincidental with – or caused by – the UK’s decision to leave the EU, inflation is rising, investment is reducing and there is a threat to employment with the possibility of jobs being exported to the Continent as fears rise that access to the single market will be renegotiated on unfavourable terms. At the same time, the traditional response of politicians to this – restricting employment rights – is not on the table. Quite the opposite.

As you will read in this issue (pages 5 and 6), none of the main parties is proposing a reduction in the number or extent of workers’ rights. The differences between the main parties are in how far rights will be extended or enhanced.

The primary question is how this will affect employment. If employers reduce their workforces, this will see a rise in dismissals and moves to change employees into flexible workers. Regardless of which party gets in, this is likely to result in a rise in employment tribunal claims. If there are more dismissals and fewer jobs, claimants will be unemployed for longer; will have greater losses; and will more likely qualify for remission on fees, so will more likely make a claim to a tribunal. With enhanced rights there may be more to claim about too.

One question this will raise is whether the tribunal system will be able to cope. Despite the valiant efforts of its staff, it does not cope now with historically low numbers of claims. No party is suggesting significant increases in resources for the system that applies the new and enhanced rights everyone is proposing.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft  LLP