The report The Implications For Access To Justice Of The Government's Proposals To Reform Legal Aid (HL100, HC 766) concludes that the government should reconsider its proposals for the reform of legal aid. The government has so far made welcome exemptions to its proposed residence test in the light of responses to its consultation, but the Committee is still not satisfied that the proposed test will not affect vulnerable groups. While accepting that it is legitimate for the government to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid and to restrict the scope of prison law funding, the Committee calls for more and broader exemptions from these proposals to avoid breaches of the fundamental right of effective access to justice in individual cases. The exceptional funding framework may not be working as intended and could therefore leave certain groups unable to access legal aid when human rights law requires it. The proposal to remove cases with

The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that the measures in the Immigration Bill serve the legitimate aim of immigration control, but is concerned that some of them may be applied in practice in a way which breaches human rights in particular cases. The Committee is particularly concerned about the risk of the new provisions relating to residential tenancies giving rise in practice to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but face genuine barriers to leaving. The Committee is also concerned to ensure that these measures do not give rise to an undue risk that migrant children will be exposed to homelessness or separation from family members. The provisions in the Bill on access to residential tenancies may heighten the risk of racial discrimination against prospective tenants, notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act. The First Tier Tribunal, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether it is within

Parliament and the Law (Second Edition) is an edited collection of essays, supported by the UK's Study of Parliament Group, including contributions by leading constitutional lawyers, political scientists and parliamentary officials. It provides a wide-ranging overview of the ways in which the law applies to, and impacts upon, the UK Parliament, and it considers how recent changes to the UK's constitutional arrangements have affected Parliament as an institution. It includes authoritative discussion of a number of issues of topical concern, such as: the operation of parliamentary privilege, the powers of Parliament's select committees, parliamentary scrutiny, devolution, English Votes for English Laws, Members' conduct and the governance of both Houses. It also contains chapters on financial scrutiny, parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament and human rights, and the administration of justice. Aimed mainly at legal academics, practitioners, and political scientists, it will also be of interest to anyone who is curious about the many fascinating ways in which the law interacts with and influences the work, the constitutional status and the procedural arrangements of the Westminster Parliament.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that the measures in the Immigration Bill serve the legitimate aim of immigration control, but is concerned that some of them may be applied in practice in a way which breaches human rights in particular cases. The Committee is particularly concerned about the risk of the new provisions relating to residential tenancies giving rise in practice to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but face genuine barriers to leaving. The Committee is also concerned to ensure that these measures do not give rise to an undue risk that migrant children will be exposed to homelessness or separation from family members. The provisions in the Bill on access to residential tenancies may heighten the risk of racial discrimination against prospective tenants, notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act. The First Tier Tribunal, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether it is within its jurisdiction to consider a new matter raised on an appeal. In the report, the Committee concludes that the restriction on appeal rights might constitute a serious threat to the practical ability to access the legal system to challenge unlawful immigration and asylum decisions, and to enforce the statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising immigration and asylum functions. The Committee also comments on other aspects of the Bill.

Britain's coalition government of 2010–2015 ushered in an enduring age of austerity and a "moral mission" of welfare reform as part of a drive for deficit reduction. Stricter controls were applied to both domestic welfare and international migration and asylum, which were presented as two sides of the same coin. Policy in both areas has engaged a moral message of earned entitlement and invites a sociological approach that examines such policies in combination, alongside their underpinning moral economy. Exploring the idea of a moral economy – from its original focus on popular rebellion at the rising price of corn to more contemporary analysis of measures that seek to impose moral values from above – Lydia Morris examines Britain's reconfigured pattern of rights in the fields of domestic welfare and migration. Those in power have claimed that heightened conditions and sanctions for the benefit-dependent domestic population, both in and out of work, will promote labour market change and reduce demand for low-skilled migrant workers, often EU citizens, whose own access to benefits was curtailed prior to Brexit. Morris traces related political discourse through to the design and implementation of concrete policy measures and maps the diminished access to rights that has emerged, paying particular attention to the boundaries drawn in defining target groups, and the resistance this has provoked. The Moral Economy of Welfare and Migration considers the topology of the whole system to highlight cross-cutting devices of control that have far-reaching implications for how we are governed as a total population.

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.