As the sun slowly recedes towards the horizon of our summer, things begin to get back to normal (whatever that means in the post-referendum, pre-Brexit world we now live in). The dust can begin to settle on our new Government and ministers; announcements can be made; and decisions can begin to be taken about what sort of a society we should be.

It was with some interest, therefore, that the new Lord Chancellor/Justice Secretary made one of her first announcements, since being appointed in July, on court reform. The substance of the announcement was in relation to changes across the justice system, from the criminal to civil courts and to tribunals. This includes ‘a plan to create one system, one judiciary and better quality outcomes’. This will lead to tribunals being ‘part of a single justice system with a single judiciary’.

In addition there will be extensive use of information technology: ‘Tribunals will be digital by default, with easy-to-use and intuitive online processes put in place to help people lodge a claim more easily, but with the right levels of help put in place for anyone who needs it, making sure nobody is denied justice.’ This will include virtual hearings and online decision-making.

These proposals seem very much in line with those put forward previously by Lord Justice Briggs and others. We will need to see the detail of them and, no doubt, ELA will have a view and will respond to any consultation opportunities.

What is more interesting is the language and the sentiment that accompanies the proposals, particularly when put against the reality for claimants. We are told: ‘Tribunals are an essential component of the rule of law. They enable citizens to hold the state and employers to account for decisions that have a significant impact on people’s lives.’ Good stuff and all true. ‘We want a justice system that works for everyone.’ Again, no one would disagree with the sentiment. ‘Our overall aim is clear: a courts and tribunal system that is just, proportionate and accessible to everyone.’ Hoorah.

Yet set against this are things that appear, on the face of it, to be somewhat contradictory. At the beginning of September the latest set of figures for Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal receipts and claims were released. Tribunal claims for the period April to June 2016 are down again, by some 3% as against the same period a year earlier: ‘The trend in single claims … saw a sharp drop in Q3 2013/14 following the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees in July 2013.’

While a variety of explanations has been proffered – more jobs in the economy, or a reduction in the number of frivolous claims, for example – there is little or no evidence to substantiate these. There is a significant amount of evidence to substantiate the introduction of high fees as being the primary cause of the reduction in citizens holding employers to account for decisions that have a significant impact on their lives. That concerns whether the system is accessible to everyone.

It may be the case that I and others have got it wrong and really fees are nothing much to do with the huge drop in claims. One way of finding out might be to conduct some sort of a review. Perhaps look at some evidence, although be careful not to ask for any from outside bodies. That could be dangerously misleading. Once the review has been completed it could be published and then everyone would be able to see the conclusions.

Nearly a year since the review was completed, we are still waiting. What possible reason could there be for not publishing it?

Alex Lock, DAC  Beachcroft  LLP