While we may now have some clarity about which end and which beginning we have reached following the general election, I can content myself with not having got carried away – at least in print – in making what now seem like wild predictions as to the particular colour, shade or complexion of the political parties we will have in government. We have a majority government, albeit one with such a small majority it makes it look like John Major stormed to victory with a landslide in 1992.

Some employment lawyers will be pleased with the result, hoping for a clear direction of travel and a certain focus on the issues we grapple with daily. Others will be disappointed. The debate over tribunal fees is unfinished and must be brought to a conclusion as soon as is practicable. The issue is one that affects workers, employees and employers. We have a legislative and common law framework that regulates relations between all three and they need to know where they stand in terms of their ability to enforce rights and obligations on both parts. A review of the impact of tribunal fees was promised some time ago but was eventually kicked into the long grass of the post-election meadow. The new government (which comprised a majority of the old one) now needs to make good on the promise of a review.

There is still an outstanding appeal following the unsuccessful judicial review last autumn and this will no doubt consider many of the issues that would fall to a review. Nevertheless, it is an issue more of policy and should properly be conducted by the government rather than the courts. ELA, as well as other organisations, will want to comment upon the impact of fees and the government should listen to the views of all interested parties on their effect on the system for redress and users’ access to justice. That is something the courts have shown themselves less willing or able to do.

Before we have time to catch our breath, two more issues of interest to the wider employment law community will loom large: the proposed abolition of the Human Rights Act and the promised referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. In relation to both there is a lack of clarity. With the former, there need to be clear proposals on whether it is suggested that rights be added to or removed from what we have already, or whether it is more a matter of how existing rights are enforced, ie not by reference to the European Court of Human Rights.

The issues around the UK’s membership of the EU are no less far-reaching and in many ways more opaque. Much of UK employment law is derived from our relationship with the EU: think about informing and consulting; equality laws; working time; aspects of pay; and agency workers. At the very least there would be a huge period of disruption if the UK were to vote to leave.

With regard to opaqueness, there is the promise of a period of negotiation before any referendum and, so far, little has been given away on what needs to be negotiated. The BBC reported recently that the government is looking at in-work and out-of-work benefits, bloc voting rights and resisting calls for ever-closer political union. Those groups that complain about over-regulation by the EU and so-called interference in the UK’s labour market may take little comfort from such a stance. Others, of course, may draw comfort from such an approach, believing that even a UK outside of the EU would not be able to resist so many of the rights that are granted to workers through our membership if the UK wanted to negotiate free trade deals.

So while one chapter closes in political life, it looks like several more may yet open.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP