Seemingly, the Business Secretary is also set to confirm that the government will introduce ‘protected conversations’ between an employer and a worker to discuss issues such as poor performance without this being used later in any tribunal claim.

The Indy also carries a sceptical editorial arguing that there is “little evidence that [such measures] would result in any meaningful economic improvement” and warning that they would be “unacceptably open to abuse”.

As Brian Groom points out in the Financial Times, this proposed overhaul of employment laws is highly politically contentious.

Many Liberal Democrats are said to believe that the removal of workers’ rights will only heighten fear in the workplace at a time of rising unemployment and, in turn, suppress consumer demand.

Vince Cable says that he has “seen no evidence to suggest that no fault dismissal would be a good idea,” but why then is he launching a consultation on it? The answer surely can only be found in the horse trading of coalition politics.

Wherever this discussion leads remains to be seen but it would be alarming if “protected conversations”, the increase in qualifying periods for claims and the facilitation (or encouragement?) of no fault capability dismissals were to effectively set the clock back with regard to the legitimisation of mandatory retirement.

Incidentally, it will be recalled that whilst the default retirement age has been repealed, employers who can show legitimate underlying aims can opt to retain mandatory retirement ages, providing such measures are deemed a proportionate response to the aim identified.

Such employer justified retirement ages (EJRAs) have proved few and far between, for understandable reasons, but a search by TAEN reveals the interesting fact that two of them are from our leading universities.

Oxford University is adopting an EJRA of 67 for its academic and academic-related staff. Cambridge University is also considering an EJRA of 67 for tenured academics.

While the prospect is enticing of learned academic advancing legal arguments to electrify (or induce torpor in) the employment tribunals of our university towns, it could be that the legal changes mentioned above would make the EJRAs redundant – to use the word advisedly.

Over-reaction is never desirable, but it seems a significantly less secure future is in prospect for older workers wishing to work into their later sixties.

The old trick of “give a thing and take a thing” could be one result of the changes mooted this morning. Mandatory retirement could be with us again under a different name, not perhaps so widely practiced, but nonetheless a significant uncertainty if these changes proceed.

I know nothing of Mr Beecroft’s background but I wonder how much he really understands the daily practices of people managers. It seems he wants to get rid of the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, introducing instead a basic no fault dismissal law in which individuals dismissed through lack of performance would receive the equivalent of a redundancy payment.

The right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal was introduced following the 1968 Donovan report on trade unions and employers associations and was an element of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act introduced by the then Conservative Government under Sir Edward Heath.

Something simply had to be done to address the widespread capricious use of ‘the sack’ which was an irritant giving rise to many unofficial strikes and stoppages of work. The right to complain of unfair dismissal is underwritten in conventions of the International Labour Office.

As matters stand, capability and performance are among the fair reasons for dismissal. An employer wishing to dismiss an employee for incompetence or just not working hard enough may do so. The only restraint is that they have to follow a fair procedure, giving adequate warnings and allowing the individual to have a hearing, etc.

So unless he is suggesting an end to these procedural rules too, there might be little practical change from Beecroft’s proposals that would represent any real ‘gain’ for the employer who wishes to fire someone. Denial of a fair hearing would probably amount to wrongful dismissal, a different concept, and could give rise to legal claims in the county court.

Compensating individuals (perhaps after many years service) by giving them basic state redundancy pay – nowadays much reduced in value – would be sure to provoke an indignant response among employees. Beecroft’s idea would seem to be designed to cut costs but it would probably lay the basis for endless negotiations with legal representatives and unions on acceptable pay off levels that would probably end up using existing unfair dismissal compensation as a benchmark.

Beecroft’s changes might invite employers with ‘a thing’ about declining performance and age to revert to the now outlawed default retirement age. The other side to the coin, however, would be that anyone who wished to challenge a dismissal would look to whether or not they could bring a claim of discriminatory dismissal on grounds of age, gender, sexual orientation or whatever.

One consequence of this would be that cases would be hard fought, with the bar for costs and compensation levels at the far higher ‘no limits’ levels that apply in discrimination claims. Many would be settled out of court but the stakes might well be higher than they are at present where the issues are simpler and less inflammatory than an accusation of discrimination.

So long as there are rights of one sort or another to bring complaints of unfairness, it is natural that people will look hard to see if their case fits. Rather than delving into histories of bickering and poor relationships (forgotten skeletons in dark cupboards) it would be better to leave well alone in my view.

Beecroft’s view of managers exercising their responsibilities for managing performance is worrying. (I wonder what his evidence is that large numbers of people are backsliding and idling away the hours in the way he implies?)

If his picture resembles the truth, it is surely important to introduce more responsibility and professionalism among managers to manage performance, talk to their employees and ensure that round pegs are in round holes.

Such elementary approaches are surely preferable to stripping away the basic rights of employees to a fair hearing and, at the end of a very long road, a statutory right to complain of unfairness.

But were Beecroft’s ideas to gain acceptance, look out for a spike of complaints of age discrimination. In the US, where there are no rights to complain of unfair dismissal, age discrimination claims are soaring. Is this the future we have to look forward to? I really hope not.