There is a curious smell of reform in the air. In a number of quarters there is talk about quite fundamental changes to our court and tribunal system, demonstrating a drive for reform of our institutions and dispute resolution. I say that it is curious, as there is a lack of clarity about what is driving it.

Usually there is some big event – a disaster, a miscarriage of justice or a lacuna discovered – that gets people hot under the collar and on to the metaphorical streets with placards. Politicians, out of either a genuine concern or a genuine need for a bandwagon, start to debate and push for reform. What we see is a problem, leading to discussion, leading to formulation of solution and then the reform.

At the moment we have various proposals being put about that will substantially change the environment in which we practise employment law and our clients resolve their disputes. The first is in relation to the Briggs’ Review of the Civil Court Structure and the second to Scotland and what is proposed with regard to employment tribunals in that jurisdiction.

Although the Briggs’ Review is not finalised yet (an interim report was published early in 2016, with the final report due by July), one of the proposals put forward that has generated much comment is to have a Single Employment Court. This would appear to locate the current employment tribunals and EAT within the civil court system. It would deal with all employment law and equalities matters.

In Scotland, as part of the devolution settlement, it has been proposed that specified functions of employment tribunals in that jurisdiction would be transferred to the first-tier Tribunal for Scotland. This may have the consequence of diluting the expertise of the current tribunals and effectively abolishing employment judges there.

What is behind this though? That is quite hard to find. My view is that we have a developed, expert and largely functioning employment tribunal system. We have good employment judges, experienced and knowledgeable, well used to dealing with litigants in person, difficult evidence and difficult lawyers. It has none of the arcane formality of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is not perfect, of course.

What was suggested was that we needed a ‘one nation justice policy’, with observations made that the current system meant that those with money could secure justice, whereas those without were being failed by the system.

In the absence of a disaster or miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see how such big and costly changes may improve things. Where the system is not ‘broke’ it may be better to look at smaller, more incremental improvements. For example, greater use of online case management, digital bundles and witness statements, together with the installation of Wi-Fi in tribunals could generate some efficiencies and costs savings, while being more in tune with the way many people live and work.

If one wanted to improve the system for those who do not have money, given that fees in 2014-15 raised only £9m, it would cost very little to reduce or abolish them altogether. Some £700m has been earmarked for ‘digitisation’ of the civil justice system, by contrast.

What is helpful in the debate is to have expertise. An ELA working party was established to look at these and other proposals. It has produced a fine piece of work, setting out the proposals and our response to them. The response is written from a legal and practical perspective, rather than a political one. It can be found on the ELA website and I think is a ‘must read’ for practitioners.

Finally, remember to vote in the elections for the Management Committee.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP