Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (the Committee) has concluded its inquiry into Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation. Public Law Project (PLP) welcomes its report as perhaps the most thorough parliamentary treatment we have had of how AI is affecting (and may yet affect) people’s rights, including through its use in the public sector.

The Committee’s central conclusion is that the UK is not doing enough to regulate AI and protect people’s rights. Their report warns us that, in racing to realise the promises of AI, we risk taking power away from people by making decisions that affect them harder to understand and challenge. PLP’s evidence to the inquiry was focused on how this accountability problem arises in the public sector. This blog explains and comments on the relevant Committee findings.

Lack of transparency

The Committee has concluded that “the current legal framework does not provide for adequate transparency in relation to the development and deployment of AI systems” (at [130]). In the public sector, this transparency problem can be seen at two levels.¹

At a systemic level (i.e. the general picture of how government is using AI), the Committee cited PLP’s Tracking Automated Government Register as evidence that government is insufficiently transparent about its use of AI in decision-making. It concluded that, although the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (‘ATRS’) (a mandatory transparency requirement for certain central government algorithmic tools) “provides some transparency concerning the use of AI systems”, it is “limited in its coverage” (at [133]).

This systemic transparency problem should be addressed by any AI Bill aimed at safeguarding human rights (such as that recommended by the Committee). Placing the ATRS on a statutory footing would be a good way to start – it is already mandatory for central government, but compliance with it is low. Giving a suitable body a statutory responsibility for enforcing the ATRS could improve that.

At an individual level (i.e. the information given to individuals about how AI has been used in a decision affecting them), the Committee concluded that there is strong evidence to suggest that individuals have been unable to challenge human rights violations because they have not been told about AI use (at [131]).

The Committee agreed with PLP’s evidence that public bodies’ obligations to tell people when AI has influenced a decision affecting them need to be made clearer (at [215] and [217]). Although the UK GDPR requires that people be informed where a significant decision about them is taken solely through automated means,² the requirement does not apply where a human decision maker is assisted by AI. Extending the requirement to AI-assisted decisions, and clarifying what information must be provided, could help people understand whether and how AI shaped decisions affecting them and assess whether a human was meaningfully involved in it (for example, by assessing whether the decision-maker had enough time and information to meaningfully review an automated output).

Fragmented regulation

The Committee concluded that “the present regulatory framework is fragmented and difficult to navigate” and that, as a result, a dedicated AI oversight body is needed to plug gaps in protection, including by auditing AI systems, issuing codes of practice and transparency requirements, investigating alleged breaches and sanctioning non-compliance (at [224]-[227]).

In the public sector, fragmentation can weaken accountability in three ways: first, by creating uncertainty about how existing legal standards apply when AI is used in decision-making; second, by making it harder to enforce those standards; and, third, by risking leaving gaps where types of harm are not properly addressed. Weak enforcement can make uncertainty worse, including by limiting opportunities for courts to clarify the law. So, the Committee is right to address both problems through its proposed AI Bill and new oversight body.

AI-assisted public decision-making may require targeted reform. PLP’s evidence details how public bodies using AI in decision-making have to navigate overlapping requirements across public law, human rights, equality law, and data protection – with considerable uncertainty about how each applies in this context (see our response to Question 2). As we have argued elsewhere, this has given a heightened significance to clear rules which are easier to apply. It is more straightforward, for example, to ensure that there is human involvement in significant decisions,³ than it is to assess, case by case, whether broader public law requirements such as fairness have been met. Targeted reform (including through the Law Commission’s review of public sector automated decision-making) could help clarify such requirements and prevent clearer, more easily applied rules from crowding them out.

Diffuse responsibility for AI

The Committee concluded that AI “deployers are the primary holders of responsibility for harms arising from AI systems” and “existing laws do not take due account of the complexity of the AI lifecycle and supply chain and are not directed to the actor that may be best placed to identify and avert the source of risks” (at [104]).

The concern is that responsibility for making sure systems are fair, lawful and non-discriminatory may not clearly attach to the actor(s) best able to identify and prevent connected risks. When a public body uses an AI system, it may be practically difficult for them to take meaningful responsibility for it if actors in the supply chain are not subject to complementary upstream obligations concerning, for example, the system’s design.

PLP has observed this play out as public bodies seek to comply with transparency requirements for automated decision-making. It is right that public bodies adopting AI systems to support their decision-making should be responsible for meeting relevant transparency requirements. However, as our upcoming research ‘Public Law Litigation in the Automated State’ will show, transparency mechanisms’ practical effectiveness can be undermined where upstream actors such as system developers are not required to provide public bodies with the information they need – particularly technical information, such as training data, which can be harder to obtain after deployment. Requiring developers to do so would make it easier for public bodies to meet both their transparency obligations and obligations to ensure decisions are fair, lawful and non-discriminatory decision.

Transparency is just one example of how diffuse responsibility can undermine accountability. So, the Committee is right to focus both on who should be liable for different AI risks, and on when in the AI lifecycle obligations must take effect. A failure to do so would be particularly problematic when public bodies use AI to assist with rights-critical decisions, with potentially harmful consequences for marginalised individuals and communities who are often most reliant on public services (a point which PLP included in its evidence and which the Committee agreed with at [134]). For example, bias in a system may originate in training data or a system’s design, shaped by upstream decisions made by its developer.⁴

Conclusion 

The Committee’s report rightly emphasises that any AI Bill must ensure that public decision-making does not become less accountable through AI use. This cannot be done by focusing exclusively on frontier systems. It will require us to make public-sector AI use more transparent; clarify and enforce the legal standards that govern AI-assisted decision-making; and ensure responsibility sits with the right actors at the right stages of the AI lifecycle. 

Read Public Law Project’s full evidence here.

References

¹ Reflecting the distinction drawn in Leslie, M. (2024) ‘Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: comparative approaches across five jurisdictions‘, Public Law Project. 

² Article 22C, UK GDPR (as amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025). 

³ As was generally required under the UK GDPR (subject to specified exemptions) before the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 weakened the requirement so that it only applies where special category data (as defined in Article 9) has been used. 

⁴ See, notably, R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058. 

The post The JCHR is right – AI can improve public services without making government less accountable appeared first on Public Law Project.

Two key issues for PLP that we expect to feature prominently are immigration and AI.

The controversial Immigration and Asylum Bill is now at committee stage in the House of Commons where it is under line by line review. Under current proposals, the legislation would undermine judicial independence and standards, further weakening human rights protections and failing to address one of the main drivers of delays and backlogs in the asylum system: poor quality decision making by the Home Office. PLP is calling for an asylum system that keeps people safe from persecution and serious harm and treats everyone with dignity and humanity.

Accountability and regulation of the use of AI has also attracted significant political and media attention in recent weeks following the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on Human Rights and the Regulation of AI. PLP’s evidence is cited extensively throughout the report and is reflected in the conclusions and recommendations. If implemented in the right way, for the right things, AI has the potential to improve the quality of state decision-making. However, we remain concerned about its proliferation, which is outpacing existing legal frameworks, creating opportunities for exploitation, discrimination, and exclusion. Action is needed to plug the gaps in the existing transparency requirements if the government wants to meet its aspirations of transparent and accountable public body use of AI.

Last year’s conference attracted more than 20,000 delegates, and with over 800 fringe events scheduled this year, we expect a bustling, high-energy atmosphere. PLP will be speaking on the ‘AI Accountability in the Public Sector’ panel hosted by Scientists for Labour. We will be calling on the government to take urgent action to ensure our legal and regulatory frameworks keep pace in order to meet their objectives of harnessing AI for good. If you are in Liverpool, we hope that you will join us.

Our work will continue after conference ends, as we strengthen connections established and sustain the momentum required to drive meaningful progress towards our vision for a fair and inclusive society, secured by a just and confident state.

Image: Mike Hughes

The post New leadership and new hope? Looking ahead to Labour Party Conference 2026   appeared first on Public Law Project.

PLP Submission Access to Justice Inquiry

PLP Submission Public Accounts Committee

Sustainability of the legal aid sector 

A key focus of both inquiries was the sustainability of the legal aid sector. PLP submitted evidence that the current legal aid rates are not financially sustainable, with legal aid firms relying on external funding to remain solvent and train staff. PLP argued that the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) fee increases for housing, immigration, and asylum legal aid work, while welcome, are not sufficient to cover increasing staff costs, and do not address loss-making work in other areas of law. Additionally, PLP highlighted that without retrospective application of the new rates, legal aid providers could be paid at the previous lower rates for up to several years.   

The Justice Committee found that the government has failed to properly implement previous recommendations aimed at improving the sector’s sustainability, and that 2025’s fee increases will not prevent further decline (at [79]). The Committee also argued that the government is “not thinking strategically about its future supply of lawyers or how to ensure sectoral retention” (at [87]). 

The Public Accounts Committee called on the MoJ to regularly review the profitability and sustainability of legal aid, to inform legal aid fees (at [5]). The Justice Committee went further, recommending that other civil legal aid fees should be increased in line with housing, immigration, and asylum, and that these increases should be implemented retrospectively and reviewed regularly (at [80]). It also encouraged the government to publish a civil legal aid workforce strategy, and to fund training schemes for the most underserved areas of civil law (at [88]).  

Access to legal aid 

The lack of profitability of legal aid work, and the associated decline in civil legal aid providers following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have led to legal aid deserts, where there are few or no providers in an area. PLP’s evidence submission described the situation for immigration and asylum legal aid, reporting that the LAA’s creation of a directory of providers willing to take on cases remotely has not been effective: on average, only 11% of providers had the capacity to take on new cases. Moreover, PLP’s national Legal Aid Capacity Data Collection Survey found that only 1 in 16 referral attempts made by support organisations to legal aid providers were successful.  

The Justice Committee found that the MoJ’s current actions are insufficient to increase the number of legal aid providers (at [96]). It recommended that the government act immediately and intervene directly to improve the provision of legal aid in underserved areas (at [104]). Similarly, the Public Accounts Committee directed the MoJ and LAA to set out the steps they are taking to close the gaps in provision in areas experiencing legal aid deserts (at [3]).  

Legal aid administration and bureaucracy  

The extensive bureaucracy and demanding audit processes required by the LAA create additional work for legal aid providers. PLP informed the Justice Committee that these factors create unnecessary burdens and financial risk for providers, and reduce the time available to assist clients. In particular, PLP encouraged the LAA to simplify application and billing processes and adopt a proportionate approach to compliance.  

The Justice Committee found that the LAA is too narrowly focused on improving processing times and reducing error rates, rather than addressing its broader policy remit of enabling access to justice (at [149]). It recommended that the LAA reduce unpaid administrative work by simplifying cost guidance, reducing unbillable work, and piloting a high-trust model (at [152]). In the longer term, the Committee encouraged a consultation on whether the LAA can, in its current form, deliver access to justice (at [153]).  

The Lord Chancellor’s duty 

It is PLP’s position that shortages in immigration and asylum legal aid, particularly in the Southwest, are resulting in eligible individuals being denied access to legal aid and, as a result, that the Lord Chancellor is in breach of his statutory duty to ‘secure that legal aid is made available’ in accordance with LASPO. The Justice Committee concurred that there is ‘substantial evidence’ that the Lord Chancellor is failing in this duty, and deemed existing mechanisms for accountability, such as judicial review, insufficient to ensure adequate provision (at [113]). It found that the government is not taking adequate steps or exercising its full powers in relation to this duty (at [114]). 

The Justice Committee urged the government to take an active role in ensuring that there is sufficient legal aid provision to meet eligible demand. It encouraged the Lord Chancellor to use his duties under section 2(2) of LASPO to make grants to providers in areas where there are high levels of unmet need, or increase the LAA’s delegated authority to enable it to offer incentives for providers in underserved areas (at [115]).  

Looking ahead: the future of legal aid 

PLP welcomes the recommendations of the Justice Committee and Public Accounts Committee. The Committees’ findings reflect a system under severe strain that is unable to meet its policy purpose. To secure an accessible and sustainable future for legal aid, the government must take steps to ensure that legal aid deserts are addressed, work is sufficiently remunerated, and the administrative burden on providers is reduced. The government must act urgently in doing so – as the Justice Committee warned, “a legal aid system that people cannot qualify for or access, and that providers cannot sustainably deliver, is no system at all.”

Image: Dembee Tsogoo

The post “No system at all”: Recent inquiries into the future of civil legal aid  appeared first on Public Law Project.

At Public Law Project, we want to see the King’s Speech set out fair, inclusive policies that offer genuine solutions to the issues facing British society: socio-economic inequality, problematic use of artificial intelligence (AI), rising support for authoritarian politics, and the climate crisis.  

This blog will explore how the King’s Speech and forthcoming legislation on asylum and AI regulation could be used to make public bodies’ decisions and processes fairer.  

1. Immigration legislation that protects human rights 

Following last year’s Restoring Order and Control policy statement, it is certain that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to make reforms to the asylum system. If the government presses ahead with its concerning plans to abolish asylum tribunals and replace them with less independent, non-legally qualified adjudicators, we anticipate a Bill establishing the new appeals body. The government also plans to make it more difficult to appeal when the Home Office refuses someone protection. 

PLP is concerned that this will impact individuals who will be removed to countries where there are risks to their life or safety. The government has also stated its intention to restrict the use of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which protects our right to privacy and family life. They intend to also ‘clarify our obligations’ to victims of modern slavery – suggesting a watering down of protections for some of the most vulnerable people in our country.  

Forthcoming asylum legislation should protect, rather than water down, human rights protection in the UK. This is particularly important given that, just two days after the King’s Speech, we expect the Council of Europe to make a political declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR in relation to asylum seekers, amid growing pressure from several member states for greater flexibility in how Convention rights are applied. The UK has been part of a broader push to narrow the scope of rights such as Article 8, and Article 3 which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.  

Although these debates are often framed around immigration policy, the rights contained in the Convention are universal, and weakening them for one group risks undermining protections for everyone. 

2. Safeguards and accountability for immigration reform 

What may be surprising is just how much of recent immigration policy reform has been made without the Home Secretary needing to bring a bill before Parliament. The government has shortened refugee leave to remain and increased the length of time migrants must have lived in the UK in order to receive indefinite leave to remain, by amending the Immigration Rules. No other policy area gives comparable power to the Home Secretary, and such significant reforms should require Parliamentary approval before they come into effect. Otherwise, this creates an unstable environment in which the goalposts for migrants are constantly moving, and asylum becomes a convenient political football, rather than being treated with the care and nuance it deserves.  

At PLP, we would like to see the forthcoming asylum bill place a duty on the Home Secretary to consult individuals, communities and groups who have sought asylum. This should take place before making changes to the Immigration Rules to ensure policymaking in this area is inclusive and accountable. We also recommend that Parliament should approve changes to the Immigration Rules, so that MPs have an opportunity to debate major changes in an area that the public are highly concerned about.  

3. A comprehensive look at AI and automation  

Although an AI Regulation Bill was mentioned in the 2024 King’s Speech, it failed to materialise in the last parliament, leaving a significant gap in the governance of AI and automated decision-making in the public sector. Although regulation of AI technology and companies is a commendable goal, what PLP would like to see is comprehensive reform of the regulation and robust oversight. 

A longstanding PLP recommendation is that government departments and public bodies should be legally obligated to be transparent about how AI is used to inform public decision-making. This could be achieved through placing the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) on a statutory footing, rather than compliance being on a voluntary basis. In addition, individuals should be informed when AI is used by the government to make, or support making, a decision affecting them.  

As well as this, there is a need for legislative frameworks that govern human decision-makers to account for the impact of AI. Existing data protection frameworks are not sufficient given the advances in technology we have seen in recent years. For example, simply having a ‘human in the loop’ — where decisions are formally made by a person reviewing an algorithmic recommendation — is not an adequate safeguard. Decision-makers may defer too readily to automated recommendations rather than exercising independent judgment, a phenomenon known as ‘automation bias’. Finally, we need a better legal framework for challenging automated decision-making when it does go wrong, as judicial review is not currently set up to deal with algorithmic opacity. 

^{Image: Daniel J. Schwarz}

The post Here we go again: Three things PLP wants to see in Starmer’s King’s Speech  appeared first on Public Law Project.

In the realm of climate justice, arguably the most rapidly developing human rights challenge of our time, we are witnessing a living dialogue between narratives and law. New ways of naming harm are making new legal arguments possible and, at the same time, legal victories also give us a more powerful vocabulary for justice. 

Bringing in insights from PLP’s Public Law and the Planet conference, this blog explores how this evolving relationship continues to redraw the map for law, advocacy and campaigning. 

Language matters 

When climate change first entered mainstream debate in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was framed in resolutely technical terms: melting ice caps, rising sea levels, parts per million. As Catherine Higham, Senior Policy Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, observed during our conference, the human story was largely missing. The central question was “what is happening to the planet?”, not “what is happening to people?” 

That distinction proved decisive. As soon as climate change was reframed in human terms as something affecting lives, health, homes, and futures, it began to carry a different kind of urgency. Beyond being only a scientific problem, it became a legal and moral one. 

This shift in language has continued to evolve. As Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers noted, more recent questions have surfaced on whether “climate change” itself is too passive a phrase, one that is too detached from questions of harm and responsibility. Alternatives such as “climate violence” can disrupt that neutrality. It names harm directly and, crucially, implies agency for addressing it. 

Timing has also been part of that framing. For years, climate change was cast as a problem of the future, a threat for generations to come. Increasingly, that framing has been swapped to something much more immediate: people are already living with, and dying from, its effects, namely those in Global South who bear the least responsibility for creating the problem in the first place. 

That temporal shift is legally significant too. A future risk invites precaution, but present harm invites remedy. Moving the narrative into the present tense has sharpened both the moral claim and the legal one. 

For those working in communications and advocacy, these shifts in language have been profound.

How the law talks back 

If language provides the initial impetus for legal action, the law can serve as a transformative mechanism rather than a passive recipient. Legal frameworks codify, sharpen, and recast narratives within a formal institutional context, in turn shaping narratives further. 

One example from human rights courts is the shift occurring in the legal understanding of state responsibility. Where climate action was once cast as a matter of political discretion — something to be balanced against competing priorities — it is increasingly being framed as a matter of obligation. Courts and litigants are articulating a different story: that failure to act is not merely a policy choice, but a breach of duty. 

That shift has consequences that go beyond semantics. It changes how inaction is perceived. A government that chooses not to act may be criticised; a government that fails in its legal obligations can be held to account. Litigation plays a crucial role here, not just in enforcing duties, but in making them visible. 

Legal language often finds its way into politics, media, and public debate. When courts or advisory bodies describe climate inaction as incompatible with fundamental rights, they’re shifting what can reasonably be argued, justified, or ignored, which helps set the terms of the wider public conversation.  

The same dynamic can be seen in debates over accountability: take the case of fossil fuel companies. Legal claims against them are moving the narrative away from vague blame on the ‘top dogs’ and toward clear, identifiable actors. By asserting that specific entities knew, made decisions, and acted in ways that caused harm, the law provides a clear line of responsibility which is vital in campaigning. 

Crucially, climate justice legal action also helps centre lived experience, giving attention to the individual whose home is lost or whose health is damaged. It introduces a vocabulary of dignity and fairness into a debate that has historically been abstract. As Higham noted, this shift has secured a “seat at the table” for sidelined communities. In this sense, the law doesn’t just respond to stories; it determines whose stories are finally heard. 

Yet there are limits to this approach. Human rights law can individualise harm, necessarily focusing on single victims or violations, while climate change is collective and cumulative, and remains difficult to prosecute. For this reason, legal action is not the whole story — particularly when it takes place in the Global North. Much of the important climate justice work is being done by community-led and Indigenous movements, who continue to shape alternative paths forward. Building power outside of the courtrooms has always, and will remain, a vital part of the path to climate justice.  

A two-way street 

The relationship between language and law is not linear. It is iterative, dynamic, and mutually reinforcing. Narrative shifts make new legal arguments possible, expanding what counts as harm, what remedies might be considered proportionate, and what forms of inaction unacceptable. Legal developments, in turn, feed back into the narrative landscape, legitimising claims, elevating voices, and clarifying responsibility. 

Choosing the right words, framing the right argument, or bringing the right case at the right moment are not separate acts — they are part of the same project. The map is still being drawn, and those who understand both the language and the law will have the greatest hand in drawing it. 

For more information, watch PLP’s free webinar – Introduction to public law for environmental campaigners. 

^{Image: Bingley Floods Boxing Day 2015 River Aire, Ireland Bridge. ©Chris Gallagher}

The post Framing a crisis: How language and law shape each other in climate justice  appeared first on Public Law Project.

Judicial review is the rule of law in action. 

But the rule of law costs money. And there are serious questions about whether the rules governing costs in judicial review properly facilitate its crucial purpose. By “costs”, we refer to the rules governing liability for, and recovery of, solicitors’ fees and disbursements such as counsel’s, expert, or court fees – not including access to or eligibility for legal aid. 

Are the rules on costs ‘fit for purpose’?

From PLP’s experience of judicial review proceedings, and from hearing the experiences of others, we know that:  

• If a case is settled by the parties before the claim is issued, parties cannot claim costs from their opponent, even if the case settles in their favour. When PLP’s research indicates that over half of claims are settled pre-issue, this means that parties have no mandatory route to secure their costs in most public law disputes. 

• If a claimant is refused permission to bring a judicial review, they are liable for the defendant’s costs, as well as the costs of other defendants and interested parties. We want to investigate whether this is a proportionate allocation of costs given the need to facilitate the issuing of arguable claims. 

• Defendants are increasingly demanding large sums based on commercial rates for work done pre-permission. For example, we have heard some public bodies demanding up to £40,000 for pre-action work (such as Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds), when only several years ago this would have amounted to a few hundred pounds. We want to examine why this is happening and whether this practice should be changed. 

This is why the Public Law Project is launching a research project looking into the costs regime in judicial review and how it should be reformed to better facilitate access to justice and the rule of law. This could include legislative reform alongside changes to guidance, culture, or practice.  

To ensure that we base our recommendations on the best possible evidence, we want to hear the full range of experiences and opinions. This includes legal practitioners as well as individuals and organisations who have been involved in judicial review either as claimant, defendant, or intervener. This will help us understand how the current system is working and views on how it might be changed. This will be done through a research questionnaire and research interviews.  

Share your insights

If you are a legal practitioner, please share your insights by completing our research questionnaire which is available here. We would value your insights and opinions. If you are a legal practitioner and would like further details or to participate in an interview, please contact PLP’s Senior Research Fellow, Lee Marsons, who will be leading this project. 

If you are not a legal practitioner and have experiences related to costs in judicial review as claimant, defendant, or intervener, please also get in touch. We may be able to highlight your experiences as case studies in the research. Please take a look at the details on the questionnaire here.

Ultimately, PLP will advocate for a better system that is fair – and seen to be fair – for all parties, that better facilitates the purpose of judicial review, as well as being workable in practice. 

The post Price tag: Share your experiences of costs in judicial review  appeared first on Public Law Project.

At Public Law Project (PLP), our work is in pursuit of a fair and inclusive society and we see Party Conferences as an opportunity for politicians and policymakers to lay the foundations to deliver fairness. As well as being interested in whether parties engage with the topics we work on (such as regulating automated decision making or ensuring fairness in the welfare and immigration systems), we’ll be looking at how parties engage with these issues.

This blog outlines the 4 things we hope to see at this year’s Party Conferences. 

1. Marginalised communities have a seat at the table 

In a fair society, everyone should get the chance to have proper input into policies that affect their lives. We are in a political moment where the shape of crucial public systems like the NHS, welfare benefits, and the asylum system are up for debate. No public service exists in a vacuum, and a huge variety of lived experience shapes the way each of us interacts with the state and the services it provides. Parties should be proactively engaging with marginalised communities to design a state that works for us all.  Being able to draw on their experiences would practically benefit anyone designing an efficient, let alone inclusive, system.  

PLP strongly encourages parties to commit to working with people with relevant lived experience when designing their policy platforms. This would be a critical step towards more informed and empathetic policy- and decision-making. This consultation shouldn’t be tokenistic; marginalised people shouldn’t be in a room just so a box can be ticked. We want to see the contributions of people who have been marginalised valued and listened to.  

2. A respectful tone 

Politicians too often rely on simplistic narratives to justify their political choices, scapegoating marginalised communities instead of acknowledging the profound impact that marginalisation and inequality have on individuals within our society. Those who are already on the receiving end of injustice and unfairness – like asylum seekers, benefit claimants, or the trans community – deserve better than to be used as deflection by those who avoid confronting the systemic problems facing us.  

A critical marker of a successful party conference will be whether marginalised communities are treated with respect. When the party leaders speak about groups of people, we have to ask – would they say it that way if they were sitting in the room? Could they repeat it and look someone with lived experience of that issue in the eye? 

The emphasis should be squarely on fairness and inclusivity, however complicated these can be. The unravelling of marginalisation comes first from respecting and understanding it, and the results will improve life for us all.  

3. Visions for a future where all power is accountable 

We are in a global political moment where authoritarianism and disregard for the rule of law are on the rise. We will be watching with anticipation to see how much emphasis parties put on ensuring accountability for the current, and all future, governments to safeguard against the potential for unchecked power.  

Because of public law protections, each of us can legally challenge the state when it acts unfairly towards us, for example through judicial review, a process where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. Through Judicial Review, PLP was able to support a refugee torture survivor threatened with deportation to Rwanda to challenge the Home Secretary in court and bring an end to the deeply harmful Rwanda policy. This ability must be safeguarded, not weakened in the pursuit of quick fixes and legislative workarounds.  

This rebalancing of power through public law does not truly exist without universal access to justice. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis, legal advice is out of financial reach for many, so our crumbling legal aid system must be reinforced. The ability to challenge unfair decisions should not be restricted to those who can afford it; those who are not privileged, whether economically or otherwise, are inherently more likely to experience discrimination. 

4. Fairness at the heart of policy making

Ultimately, we want to see is fairness and inclusivity at the heart of policy making. We don’t expect perfection from any one government or party – which is why it is so important to be able to hold any government accountable.  

Engagement with communities, respectful narratives and true accountability are the building blocks of a conference that effectively addresses the political and public law issues of our day. This autumn sees all the parties set the tone for a crucial year in British politics – we hope it will be one of fairness. 

^{Photo: Priscilla Du Preez / Unsplash License}

The post Putting people at the heart of Party Conferences: 4 things we hope to see  appeared first on Public Law Project.

As we said last summer, it is paramount that in the long term, the Government strategically counters this underlying hostility both through tone and policy action.

The majority of the UK wants a fair and humane immigration system that works, not far-right authoritarianism landing on our shores.

At PLP, we are proud that people seek refuge and safety in this country, thanks to vital legal protections like the Refugee Convention.

But that pride is shattered when people inside these hotels, who are trying to rebuild their lives, continue to face threats and abuse.

We hope that together we can turn the tide on the hostile environment we have all seen violently play out in our communities.

The post Statement on the anniversary of the 2024 riots appeared first on Public Law Project.

On Wednesday, 9 July, the Bill will return to Parliament for Grand Committee. Information published alongside Tuesday’s debate suggests that thereafter it is ‘expected to be certified as a Money Bill’.

If certification goes ahead, it means Wednesday will likely be the last opportunity for amendments to be made to the Bill before it becomes law – further limiting the opportunity for it to be informed by the expertise, voices and experience of the disabled people it will impact.

What is a Money Bill?

All Bills must be considered by both Houses of Parliament before they can become law. For most Public Bills this means being scrutinised and amended via a series of stages in both Houses.

However, the process is different for ‘money bills,’ defined as bills whose only purpose is to authorise expenditure or taxation or the granting or raising of loans and matters incidental to those subjects. In contrast to other primary legislation, Money Bills may be presented for Royal Assent a month after being sent to the Lords whether the Lords pass it or not. 

Money Bills face considerably less scrutiny than other bills. According to parliamentary practice they are heard by the Lords in a single day, with no committee, report stage, or formal third reading – and no amendments. 

There have been exceptions to this. For example:

• The Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grants Act 2010 where Labour peers tabled an amendment to the effect that the Bill should go through its usual stages (the amendment was defeated),
• The European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 which went to committee in the Lords.

Minor amendments were agreed between the Houses in relation to the China Indemnity (Application) Bill 1925, the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Extension Bill 1935-6 and the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill 1946. However, although amendments and the holding of a House of Lords Committee stage following certification as a Money Bill is possible, it is very unusual and unlikely. 

Certification as a Money Bill

Whether a bill is certified as a Money Bill is a decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Section 1(3) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that before doing so they should consult, if practicable, two members of the ‘Chairman’s Panel’ (now the Panel of Chairs) appointed for this purpose. In making that decision, they are advised by Parliamentary Counsel who should first seek the views of the House Authorities, Public Bill Committee and the Whips. 

In practice, that decision is not taken until the bill is ready to be sent up to the Lords i.e. after third reading in the House of Commons. In this case, this is currently scheduled for Wednesday 9 July.

It is possible that amendments made at the House of Commons stage, for example at Committee stage, would take the Bill outside the definition of a Money Bill.

However, once that decision is taken, under s.3 of the 1911 Act that certificate is ‘conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law’.

A financial purpose?

Money Bills are ‘narrowly’ defined under s.1(2) of the 1911 Act as Bills that are exclusively concerned with financial matters such as taxation, public money and loans.

As set out in both Erskine May and Parliamentary Counsel guidance, if the main object of the bill is to create a new charge on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament (one of the categories that falls within the definition), the Bill will not be certified if it is apparent that the primary purpose of the new charge is not purely financial.

The guidance notes that in identifying whether the primary purpose is financial ‘it may be necessary to look beyond the text or form of the Bill to ascertain the underlying policy aims’ – to distinguish between whether a Bill is imposing a charge primarily for a financial purpose, such as cutting public expenditure or reducing the budget deficit, or whether it has a wider social or economic purpose. 

In the Green Paper that preceded the current Bill, and in the statements to the House, government has emphasised that the objective of the current Bill is not just to reduce the welfare budget, but to ‘reduce the perverse incentives, promote labour market engagement over inactivity and improve the adequacy of the standard allowance whilst supporting those with most severe needs’. 

PLP recommends that MPs at third reading clarify with Government which it views as the principle purpose of the current Bill.

The wider context

The current Bill sits within a much wider context of welfare reform involving multiple different proposals, spanning two different parties of Government, and a concern throughout from Disabled People’s Organisations that their voices are not being heard.

Earlier this year, Ellen Clifford, represented by Public Law Project, successfully challenged the Conservative government’s consultation on one of these earlier government proposals.

In responding to the judgment, the UK DDPO CRPD Monitoring Coalition (a coalition of Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) working together to monitor the UK’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities) emphasised the need for Government to work ‘in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, avoiding the urge to rush through poorly formed policy that purports to save money’.

In its 2025 manifesto, Labour appeared to have heard that call, committing to champion the principle of working with disabled people, so that their views and voices were ‘at the heart of all we do’. 

It was therefore disappointing that of the 22 measures announced by the Government in its Green Paper earlier this year, over half of them, including some of the most controversial, would not to be subject to consultation. Measures are being taken forward at different stages, through different pieces of legislation, the first of which is the current Bill. 

Further, the timetable that has been set out for this deeply controversial Bill is very, very tight. As part of the House of Commons stage, it has been scheduled for Grand Committee rather than a Public Bill Committee. While all MPs will get the chance to discuss the Bill, it means proceedings will be restricted to a single day with no opportunity to hear external evidence.

If the Bill is certified as a Money Bill, and the Government meets its aspiration of having it passed by the summer recess, this highly controversial Bill will have made its way through parliament at expedited pace in less than a month, after only three days of substantive debate, and with no opportunity to take external evidence.

Comparatively, the last major piece of welfare reform legislation, the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 took eight months to pass. This included six days of House of Commons Committee debate with written evidence from 85 different organisations and individuals and oral evidence from a range of experts, followed by scrutiny in the Lords and consideration of a wide range of amendments.

More haste, less speed

Most MPs become MPs because they want to get things done; to make a positive difference for their constituents and the country that they serve. In that context, it can no doubt feel frustrating to be faced by processes and procedures that take time. 

But rushing through policy without adequate scrutiny rarely results in better policy or more speed – as was borne out last week, with last minute amendments announced at midnight the night before the second reading debate and a mid-debate concession that the reforms for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) would be delayed, pending a wider co-produced review into PIP assessments.

Parliamentary scrutiny should not be a substitute for meaningful consultation and co-production – but it does provide an opportunity for views to be heard, albeit indirectly. The debate in the Commons last week was full of the questions, representations and stories of MP’s constituents. The reasoned amendment that nearly saw the Bill not pass second reading had been co-produced with 128 disabled people’s organisations. The concern about lack of consultation is compounded when that scrutiny is also cut short.

It remains to be seen whether the certification as a Money Bill goes ahead, given both the narrow definition for these bills and the implications for scrutiny. However, given the statement of intent, MPs may want to use tomorrow’s session to clarify what the primary purpose of this Bill is, and approach the session in the knowledge that it may well be the last chance for amendments to be made.

The post What is a Money Bill – and what will it mean for the controversial welfare bill? appeared first on Public Law Project.

Trans people especially will have concerns about what the judgment means in practice for their equality, dignity, inclusion, and access to services. The full implications remain unclear, with Great Britain’s equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), having launched a consultation on its guidance which ended in June.

Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that trans people remain protected against discrimination and harassment which they face due to being transgender. In that spirit, it is surely incumbent on us all to ensure that trans people are respected, valued, and supported, like everyone else, to thrive in our society. 

This blog steps back from the case and considers the longer-term bigger picture in relation to the human rights of trans people, public law, and the courts. Public law is the field of law which regulates state power and the relationship between the individual and government. As one of the cornerstones of a free, fair and thriving society, public law has been – and remains – an essential vehicle for maintaining and expanding the human rights and dignity of everyone, including trans people, alongside social activism and political advocacy.  

There are at least three reasons why public law – particularly international protection from the European Court of Human Rights – has been crucial in making universal human rights real and practical for LGBTQ+ people over the past thirty years.

Lived experience

The first is ability and willingness of the Court to recognise the lived and living experiences of trans people in their daily lives. The landmark case of Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom decided in 2002, for example, involved a post-operative trans woman who argued that the total lack of legal recognition of her gender in UK law was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to respect for a person’s private and family life.

The Court agreed, concluding that the UK had a positive obligation to recognise a post-operative trans person’s gender for some legal purposes. The Court’s reasons reveal a grounded, insightful, and compassionate attitude. It did not dismiss Christine Goodwin’s concerns as trivial or misplaced but instead demonstrated a capacity to make her experiences visible and valued. The judges noted that: 

“It must also be recognised that serious interference with private life can arise where the state of domestic law conflicts with an important aspect of personal identity… The stress and alienation arising from a discordance between the position in society assumed by a post-operative [trans person] and the status imposed by law which refuses to recognise the change of gender cannot, in the Court’s view, be regarded as a minor inconvenience arising from a formality. A conflict between social reality and law arises which places the [trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety.” (para. 77) 

More than this, the Court recognised that, while the UK may be required to make administrative and legal changes which may take time and modestly increase costs, this was part and parcel of a fair and humane society: 

“The Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.” (para. 91) 

Personal and bodily autonomy

The second reason why public law has been crucial for the rights of LGBTQ+ people is its ability and willingness to defend and promote the personal and bodily autonomy of trans people. In a case called X and Y v Romania decided in 2021, for example, the Court considered Romanian legislation which refused to legally recognise a trans person’s preferred gender without gender affirming surgery.   

The Court found that this absolute rule was a violation of Article 8, given that it forced trans people into a humiliating choice – have surgery which you do not want or do not have your identity recognised: 

“The Court sees this as a rigidity of reasoning regarding the recognition of the applicants’ sexual identity which placed them, for an unreasonable and continuous period, in a troubling situation instilling in them feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety… [T]he domestic courts placed the applicants, who did not want gender reassignment surgery, in an insoluble dilemma: either undergo the surgery against their will and renounce the full exercise of their right to respect for their physical integrity… or renounce recognition of their sexual identity.” (para. 165) 

Holding nations accountable

The third role of public law has been to impose accountability when national authorities fall short of the European and international consensus to protect rights. In AM v Russia decided in 2021, for example, the Court considered a case where the Russian courts would not permit a trans woman to have access to her children on the basis – without evidence – that this would confuse and traumatise them.  

With reference to several European and international legal instruments – including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Resolutions of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly – the Court determined that this was a violation of Article 8 and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination in the protection of rights.

This ‘holding the line’ function is crucial, ensuring that nations do not fall below the minimum international consensus needed to protect the human rights of LGBTQ+ people. As the Court put it in Goodwin 20 years earlier: 

“Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must… respond, for example, to any evolving convergence as to the standards to be achieved…It is of crucial importance that the Convention is interpreted and applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. A failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would indeed risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement.” (para. 74)

What happens now?

Public law is unlikely to produce outcomes which are uniformly celebrated and 2025, more than most, will have been a disappointing year for many LGBTQ+ people and their allies. Nevertheless, public law has proved to be an important instrument for defending and promoting liberal, progressive change. It will always retain that potential.

Pride Month is an important time to take stock of what has been achieved, reflect honestly about what else needs to be done, and to dream and envision what society should look like for LGBTQ+ people in the years to come – free, dignified, respectful, and inclusive. We must ensure that public law is a fundamental part of achieving that vision.

The post The enduring role of public law in defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people appeared first on Public Law Project.

Over the past year at PLP, we have been examining our environmental impact and producing a plan of action to reduce our carbon emissions and environmental harms. This blog will look at this project: why we started it, the obstacles to completing this work, and the key findings and actions that PLP will be taking forwards. We encourage any organisations looking to do similar work to get in touch. 

We believe that, as the worsening effects of the climate emergency disproportionately impact the most marginalised, we would fail as an organisation that exists to serve these communities if we did not address this. As an organisation committed to fighting discrimination and inequality, we have a responsibility to minimise our climate impact. 

However, in a world where only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, it’s important to question how much impact an organisation like PLP reaching net zero would really have on the climate crisis as a whole. The popularisation of tracking individual emissions as a ‘carbon footprint’ was a deliberate tactic by British Petroleum to promote the idea that global heating is the consequence of everyday individual activities rather than fossil fuel exploitation by large corporations. Carbon accounting (the practice of tracking these emissions) has also been criticised for distracting from other environmental issues such as biodiversity and habitat loss. 

However, PLP has social power that we can use in the fight against climate change. Visible action on the climate crisis catches on – our hope is this work will bring us together with peer organisations in similar positions to us. Having conversations about the climate crisis is hugely important, so we’re grateful to With Many Roots for facilitating a staff workshop that kickstarted these conversations for us. 

Obstacles 

Having committed to action, there were three major obstacles to this work: 

1. Poor data: Few resources for calculating environmental impact are targeted at organisations of our size, and even fewer at the charity sector. Because of this, we have higher margins of uncertainty than we would prefer – but we’ve chosen to work with imperfect information to avoid paralysis. 

2. Reliance on external actors: Many changes we want to make involve third parties – our landlords, pension providers, and other suppliers. Affecting real change lies within our influence, but not our control. We’re keen to explore using our influence collectively with other organisations. 

3. Greenwashing: It is difficult to make sustainable purchasing choices, when they require significant research to avoid making decisions based on misleading claims. We are tackling this by continuously reviewing our purchasing choices.  

Findings 

Starting in 2023, we are now conducting basic carbon accounting on an annual basis, using greenhouse gas conversion factors produced by the UK government. The initial project also looked at the impact of our financial providers, waste disposal in our office, and providing climate education to staff. 

Our data from 2023 estimates PLP is responsible for 15,420kg of annual carbon emissions. 

Our initial findings in 2023 were mixed. In some areas, for example purchasing and our use of renewable energy, PLP already acts in a relatively sustainable manner; in others there are basic first steps to take, such as in electricity-saving measures and monitoring business travel. 

Actions 

Below are some changes we’ve put into place following the start of this project: 

1. Better data collection: A major obstacle in getting this project off the ground was the lack of pre-existing data in most areas. We have begun to track key areas we can target for offsetting, such as business travel conducted on behalf of PLP.  

2. Reducing energy use and waste in the office: We have taken basic measures such as raising staff awareness of energy use and our local recycling guidelines, and providing reusable coffee cups and bags in the office for staff use.  

3. Purchasing and finance: We have implemented purchasing guidelines to ensure products in our office are made sustainably and made to last. We have also closed accounts with banks that invest in fossil fuels. 

4. Governance: Our Board has approved a climate emergency statement, which includes a commitment to consider the climate crisis in our ongoing strategy development process. 

5. Offsetting: We have committed to offsetting our carbon emissions annually, though our focus is on reducing emissions overall rather than simply reducing our guilt for them. We have opted to fund a tree planting scheme rather than buy carbon credits. This is due to the lack of regulation in the carbon credit market, with the risk of greenwashing considered too high to rely on this system. 

As this project is ongoing, here are some future actions being worked on at the moment: 

1. Homeworking and staff education: PLP wants to encourage staff to switch to renewable energy, and provide sustainably produced office supplies to take home. 

2. Reducing energy use in the office: We want to implement energy-saving equipment in our office, and to improve our draft insulation. We aim to work with our landlord to move away from gas heating. 

How do we keep momentum? 

Our current aim is to put systems in place that allow consistent action without exhausting capacity or enthusiasm.  

We are maintaining accountability by sharing updates with the whole staff body, and now externally. We are also documenting the processes we put in place, such as offsetting, to avoid reliance on any one member of staff. It’s important to recognise there’s still much more progress to make on this – and that it is not something that PLP can or should do entirely independently.  

As we approach climate breakdown, we should acknowledge our own impact and seek to mitigate it. But this is also a time in which we need to see action from the Government and from larger organisations responsible for huge emissions.

^{Photo: Getty Images}

The post In the face of climate disaster, how can charities create accountability? appeared first on Public Law Project.

If the UK Government wants to prevent a widespread miscarriage of justice caused by their use of AI and automation, it will take more than hope. 

Here are 5 lessons the Government should take to avoid another failure.

1. Humans must not over-rely on machines  

The Horizon system was not working properly but it was still treated as if it was infallible, despite Post Office investigators accepting that there were flaws. 

The DWP currently uses machine learning to flag who may be attempting to commit benefit fraud. The department has already admitted that there is an inherent risk of bias in how it selects claims for review – and that their ability to monitor the bias of these models is ‘limited’ due to the lack of data they collect on protected characteristics. 

If that algorithm is indeed biased, innocent people could be wrongly flagged for investigation due to the DWP’s trust in a flawed system. 

Lesson 1 – Clear processes are needed to ensure that public sector use of AI takes due precaution of the associated risks – including having the data they need to evaluate (and prevent) potential harm and to quickly respond if injustices occur.

2. Humans need to understand the machines  

During the inquiry, one Post Office investigator said he wasn’t “technically minded” enough to question the software. 

There needs to be human involvement in, and understanding of, computer-generated outputs and decisions (such as those produced by the DWP fraud system) to check that the results are accurate and fair.  

However that human involvement also needs to be meaningful. When people use the machines to make important decisions, just having a human in the loop might not be enough to prevent miscarriages of justice.   

Lesson 2 – Government officials need to understand their own systems, how they work and how they might influence their decision making.   

3. Systems must be transparent   

The Post Office was told about weaknesses in the system, but the sub-postmasters themselves were not made aware. The Government also will not publicly declare how a lot of their algorithms work, despite admissions of the risk of bias.  

The Home Office has a tool to detect potential sham marriages, which flags a disproportionate amount of people from Albania, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Greece, and Jamaica. But those people do not know what factors the self-learning algorithm has used to judge their marriage as suspicious, even though they are the ones affected by that decision.  

Lesson 3 – All public authority use of algorithmic and automated decision-making should be transparent and information should be made available and publicly accessible (such as through the submission of reports to the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard).

This should include a requirement for public authorities to publish Equality Impact Assessments.  Government should also introduce a statutory duty requiring public bodies to inform a person subject to a decision that an Automated Decision Making (ADM) tool has been used, and how it is being used.  

4. Automated systems must be scrutinised independently  

Although the Post Office hired independent forensic accountants Second Sight to look into the Horizon system, the Post Office dismissed the serious concerns their reports raised.

Lesson 4 – Independent, expert scrutiny is required. Any regulator needs to be adequately resourced and given the right tools to enforce the regulatory regime, including powers to proactively audit public ADM tools and their operation. 

5. People affected by automated decisions must be able to contest the outcomes  

The sub-postmasters trying to defend themselves from prosecution were not allowed access to the system and data that led to their conviction. 

Similarly, nobody can contest decisions made with the help of AI or by automated systems if they do not know that an algorithm has been involved and the authority has not been open about how the system works. 

Lesson 5 – Accessible means of redress must be available to people subject to decisions made with the use of AI and automation. This requires transparency – see lesson 3 – but also an effective regulator (see lesson 4) and access to legal aid where it is needed to pursue a judicial review challenge. 

Conclusion  

We know the human impact of the Horizon scandal: bankruptcy, false convictions, and even suicide.  

The UK Government is expanding use of AI and automation in an attempt to detect fraud attempts, cut costs and improve accuracy. 

But if we ignore the failures of the Horizon system itself and how the Post Office dealt with its mistakes, the Government could be on track to create its own widespread computer-based scandal.  

The post How can Government avoid the next Horizon scandal? appeared first on Public Law Project.