The number of judicial reviews has remained remarkably steady when the increase in the number of immigration judicial reviews - now handled by the Upper Tribunal - is disregarded. The Committee does not consider the Government to have demonstrated by clear evidence that non-immigration related judicial review has ‘expanded massively’ in recent years as the Lord Chancellor claims, that there are real abuses of the process taking place, or that the current powers of the courts to deal with such abuse are inadequate. The report covers: procedural defects and substantive outcomes; legal aid for judicial review cases; interveners and costs; capping of costs (protective costs orders); alternatives to the Government’s judicial review reforms; judicial review and the public sector equality duty. The Committee has concerns over the proposals’ impact on access to justice and the lack of evidence to support the Government’s proposals. In the Committee’s view, the proposals expose the conflict inherent in the combined roles of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice which raises issues which should be considered by a number of parliamentary committees. There should be a thoroughgoing review of the effect of combining in one person the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and of the consequent restructuring of departmental responsibilities between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.