The Government proposes to implement its residence test policy by means of an affirmative statutory instrument, which it laid in draft on Monday 31 March. This report looks at that statutory instrument, particularly in relation to its likely effect on children. It sets out in some detail the potential impact of the residence test on four particular categories of children: unaccompanied children, undocumented children, children with special educational needs or disabilities, and section 17 and 20 Children Act 1989 cases. The Committee regrets that the Government's proposal was not introduced by primary legislation to allow both Houses to scrutinise and amend its provisions, and it urges the Government to withdraw the instrument as currently drafted. If the Government does decide to proceed by affirmative instrument, the Committee expects the newly laid instrument to reflect its concerns. The Committee states that the Government's justification for its residence test proposal - to ensure that only individuals with a strong connection to the United Kingdom can claim civil legal aid at the UK taxpayers' expense - cannot be applied fairly to children. It concludes that, if the residence test applies to children, it cannot see any way to ensure that the views of children are heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child, as required by Article 12 UNCRC, or to ensure that the child's best interests are a primary consideration

Building on a series of ESRC funded seminars, this edited collection of expert papers by academics and practitioners is concerned with access to civil and administrative justice in constitutional democracies, where, for the past decade governments have reassessed their priorities for funding legal services: embracing 'new technologies' that reconfigure the delivery and very concept of legal services; cutting legal aid budgets; and introducing putative cost-cutting measures for the administration of courts, tribunals and established systems for the delivery of legal advice and assistance. Without underplaying the future potential of technological innovation, or the need for a fair and rational system for the prioritisation and funding of legal services, the book questions whether the absolutist approach to the dictates of austerity and the promise of new technologies that have driven the Coalition Government's policy, can be squared with obligations to protect the fundamental right of access to justice, in the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom.

The last five years have seen a range of international developments, ranging from the growth of radicalisation and fundamentalism, to growing concerns around our energy supply, and rising aggression from Russia. The NSS must be flexible enough to support contingency planning, and in this Report the Committee recommends that the Government produce a classified NSS or annex which can be used in Government departments to influence planning assumptions for a range of scenarios. In its report the Committee said that the next NSS should look hard at the UK's place within the international order, and what strategic thinking should underpin its actions over the next five years. It also needs to influence the Comprehensive Spending Review, to ensure that the Government can make fully-informed decisions on security-related spending. The next NSS should set clear objectives for the UK's future place in the world and geopolitical priorities, and inform the Strategic Defence and Security Review's assessment of the means required to achieve them.

Since the reforms came into effect, there has been a significant underspend in the civil legal aid budget because the MoJ failed to ensure that those who are eligible for legal aid are able to access it. This has been partly been due to a lack of public information, including information about the Civil Legal Advice telephone gateway for debt advice, and the Committee recommends that the MoJ take prompt steps to redress this. The Committee also concludes that the exceptional cases funding scheme has not worked as Parliament intended. It was supposed to act as a safety net, protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable. The Committee expects the MoJ to react rapidly to ensure that the scheme fulfils Parliament's intention that the most vulnerable people are able to access legal assistance. The Government's reforms have led to an increase in the number and a change in the profile of litigants in person: increasingly these are people who have no choice but to represent themselves, and who may thus have difficulty in doing so effectively: although many tribunals are accustomed to dealing with unrepresented litigants the courts have to expend more resources in order to assist them. The MoJ has not been able to demonstrate that it has achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Although significant savings have been achieved, efforts to target legal aid at those who most need it have focused on intervention aimed at the point after a crisis has already developed, rather than on prevention.

Half a century ago, on 16 December 1966, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). While the adoption of the two UN human rights covenants was celebrated all over the world, their 50th anniversary has received very little attention from the international community. The present book marks this anniversary by taking stock of the first half-century of the existence of what are probably the world's two most important human rights treaties. It does so by reflecting on what the covenants have achieved (or failed to achieve) in the years that have passed, by determining and comparing their current influence in the various regions of the world, and by assessing their potential roles in the future. The book contains papers that were presented during a symposium held in Zurich in 2016, which brought together experts and stakeholders from a range of disciplines and world regions. Some fundamental issues that are addressed by the contributors are as old as the two covenants themselves. They concern, for example, the division of human rights into first- and second-generation rights, and the question of whether there should be one central monitoring body - possibly a world court - or more than just one. However, the contributors go beyond such questions that have been explored before; they develop new answers to old questions and point to new challenges.

The Government's progressive work on tackling violence against women and girls abroad is not translating into its domestic policy, despite its Violence against Women and Girls Action Strategy and the Home Secretary's personal commitment to the issue. The Committee warns that failure to provide adequate refuge spaces and specialist services for victims of violence against women and girls demonstrates the difficulty for the Government in fulfilling its international obligations under the Convention when decisions over commissioning of certain services has been devolved. The Committee also expresses alarm at the prevalence of violence against women and girls across many cultures in the UK today, and heard troubling evidence from many minority groups that represent women with particular needs. The portrayal of women as victims of violence is deeply embedded in cultural stereotypes, in the depiction of women in the media and in how women are treated in the asylum system. This has to stop The Committee's recommendations include that: schools should play a greater role and include issues of violence against women and girls within the PSHE curriculum; whilst the Government has taken steps to engage with the media and with public awareness campaigns to counteract the sexualised portrayal of women, noting that the BBC declined invitations to give evidence to this inquiry, the media themselves should do more; the Government look again at the payment of universal credit to couples because of its concerns that it could put women subject to domestic violence at risk.