The editorial board is an exemplar of good practice and fairness. Each month we take care to ensure that our articles are balanced and fair, as well as being technically accurate and, of course, readable. Frequently discussion gets quite heated if the perception is that an issue appears too employer- or employee-friendly. Everyone is keen to ensure we stick to one of ELA’s guiding principles, that of being non-political. That said, we are keen not to stifle debate and welcome articles that have something to say, that give a view or opinion (almost) however controversial.

As we considered articles for this issue, discussion turned to John Bowers’ article on co-locating employment tribunals with civil, criminal and youth justice courts (page 9). (Pausing there, I do have nostalgia for Woburn Place. Not only was it where I did my first employment tribunal claim – although they were Industrial Tribunals in those days – it had a café on the top floor and you could smoke in there. Another world!) Some felt the article was quite critical of the Ministry of Justice and therefore we should offer a right of reply. Clearly there are reasons for the policy of co-location and, perhaps, things were not as bad as was suggested.

I spent some time digging around to find a suitable contact at the Ministry of Justice who might be empowered to talk about estate management, access to the justice system, witness boxes and coats of arms. Before I managed to find such a person my job was done for me: the ministry published its proposals on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales.

The consultation starts with laudable aims. ‘Reform will bring quicker and fairer access to justice and create a justice system that reflects the way people use services today. Progress towards a modernised service is already being made. Wi-Fi and digital screens have been introduced into many court buildings and a digital case management system for the administration of criminal cases is well underway … Increased use of technology such as video, telephone and online conferencing will help drive … improvements … Many straightforward cases do not need face-to-face hearings, which should be reserved for the most sensitive or complex cases … We can only provide better access to justice if we take difficult decisions to reduce the cost of our estate and reinvest the savings.’

For a moment the vision became clear. All those old tribunal buildings could be closed and sold off for student flats. We could conduct hearings via tablets in a sort of mass video conference. The savings made could then be used to reduce or abolish tribunal fees, thus providing that ‘better access to justice’. Not quite.

There will be changes for employment lawyers. The Hull employment tribunal centre will close; as will the Newcastle one; and Norwich; and Bristol. Bury St Edmunds, which used to be the Central Office of the Industrial Tribunals, where all claims began, will also close. All these centres will be integrated into Magistrates Courts or Civil Justice Centres.

Whether this is a good or a bad thing only time will tell. If you have a view, consultation is open until 8 October. What is important, however, is that if changes are to be made for good reasons, then those good reasons should be followed through. Wi-Fi should be provided, along with the digital screens and case management systems, as well as making what is left of the estate more modern and comfortable. Otherwise the exercise is merely cost-cutting, which is not what it is trailed as being. And if the Ministry of Justice is serious about access to justice, it should look more closely at the other review it is conducting: tribunal fees.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP