That the country has had nearly a decade of austerity will not be news to anyone. The fact that the current Government has declared ‘the end of austerity’ makes the assertion uncontroversial. It is a matter of fact that the Ministry of Justice suffered some of the deepest cuts to its budgets when compared with other departments.

The Ministry of Justice budget in 2009-10 was £9.04 billion, less than 1% of Government expenditure. In 2018, this had been shrunk to £7.63 billion, a headline reduction of more than 15%. If one factors inflation into this over that nine-year period, to take account of rising costs, then the real terms decrease in resourcing is nearly 30%.

One factor to bear in mind when considering these figures is that the total value of goods and services produced in the UK – gross domestic product – over the period 2008 to 2017 from £1.53 to £2.04 trillion. The Government share of GDP taken in taxation for spending on public services has remained, broadly, at 40%. This means that while the ‘cake’ is bigger, along with the slice that the Government takes from it, the amount that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice has become significantly smaller.

These figures are all matters of fact and are the results of political decisions that have been made. For example, health spending over the period 2008 to 2018 grew in real terms by 25%. Some may agree that, where there are competing demands, any Government has to prioritise, and this will mean winners and losers.

ELA surveyed members’ experiences of dealing with the employment tribunal system, looking at administration, and including the amount of time matters were taking. We reported on this in our August issue and the results were not pretty. The headline was: ‘ELA survey reveals “bleak picture”.’

I am delighted to include in this issue an article from Brian Doyle, President of the Employment Tribunals in England & Wales, Shona Simon, his counterpart for Scotland and Daniel Flury, Deputy Director (Tribunals) at HMCTS, responding to the ELA survey. There is lots of comfort to be drawn from what they say, as well as their recognition of deficiencies in the system. We will see if we can follow up, perhaps with members as well as the Presidents and HMCTS, in a year or so to see what progress is being made.

Within our legal system, these issues are not confined to employment tribunals. I have spent a week in the Crown Court and the picture there is similar, with the number of sitting days being cut and administrative resources stretched in similar ways to those identified in our survey. This leaves both defendants and victims subject to delay and lengthy waiting lists in some of the most important experiences they will have in their lives.

Of course, it is right that efficient ways of working need to be found and that better use of technology can help to speed up the process for all concerned. It must, however, be kept in mind that it is the quality of the output that is most important – has the right decision been made for the rights reasons? – and that, ultimately, it is a matter of resourcing, in that you get what you pay for. If budgets are cut, then the service will decline.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP