The latest set of employment tribunal and EAT figures has just been published and, as ever, makes for an interesting read. Not only are there the headline figures, in terms of receipts and disposals, but also a wealth of information about the types of claims made and the regional breakdown.

We are now approaching the third anniversary of the introduction of tribunal fees and the second since the launch of early conciliation. Both have had a marked and sustained effect on the number of tribunal claims, quite beyond what anyone predicted at the time. The figures published are new for the three-month period October to December 2015, but also include data going back to 2012, so one gets a sense of trend.

First of all, we have all been round the block a sufficient number of times to know the difference between a ‘single’ and ‘multiple’ claim. Arguably the number of single claims gives a better view of the number of people prepared to pay (or apply for remission) to submit a claim, compared to the ‘multiples’ covering group action on things like holiday pay. The number of single claims for the quarter was 4,388. You can more than triple that for the same period in 2012, which saw nearly 15,000 single claims submitted. Following the introduction of fees, for the same quarter in 2013 the number of single claims was 4,969; for 2014 it was 4,385. No growth and no recovery.

Some people – possibly many – will say that is a good thing. They will say that it demonstrates an economy that is growing and creating jobs; one where there are record levels of employment and in which the incentives to people that encouraged a rise in claims over two decades have been effectively dealt with and the balance reset.

Others will say that you only need to open your eyes and see the ‘bleedin’ obvious’: introduce a high price for a service that was previously free and put obstacles in the way of being able to access it and you will effectively choke off demand. Introduction of tribunal fees + early conciliation = massive fall in claims across the range – in fact, by more than 70%. You don’t need to be an economist to work that out.

Clearly there is an access to justice argument – although to read the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments you might question my use of the word ‘clearly’ – but others may say that it is a price worth paying to free up business from the burden of tens of thousands of poorly drafted and spurious claims. As has rightly been pointed out, however, the proportion of claims that succeed is little changed following the introduction of fees and early conciliation, suggesting no higher or lower number of the spurious variety being submitted.

For those wondering whether we will get to the bottom of this, fear not. You will recall that after Unison was granted permission to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of its judicial review application (April 2015) and before the Court of Appeal made its decision (August 2015), the Government announced that it would conduct a review into the impact of fees (June 2015). The timing would have been no more than coincidental.

This review has been conducted, the analysis done and the report written. It was completed and has been with the minister since at least 7 October 2015 (when it was referred to in employment tribunal user group minutes) and it was referred to again in the Tribunals’ Annual Report, published months ago. Given that no evidence or submissions were invited from anyone – it was purely an internal review, relying on their own data – it can’t take that long to read or correct. Accordingly, it should be published without further delay.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP