Forewords by Mike Jackson and Sian James MP The film Pride has reignited interest in the struggles of the miners in the South Wales valleys in the strike of 1984-5. A new chapter in this re-issued book shows why the Welsh miners were in a unique position to forge an alliance with Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners Group. Hywel Francis, MP for Aberavon, as a historian and active participant in the strike, had a unique insight into the way in which the struggles for jobs and communities broadened out to become a powerful national movement in Wales, involving trade unions, political parties, churches, the Welsh Language Society, and community, peace and women's support groups, as well as their lesbian and gay supporters. This very personal history, which explains why the South Wales valleys were the strongest and most loyal of all the British coalfields, is based on the author's personal diaries, and his articles and essays in a number of Welsh and British journals. It tells the story of the individual and collective courage and pain of Welsh miners, their families and their communities - and is an important contribution to our understanding of a defining moment in modern Welsh history.

Welsh miners made up one of the largest contingents within the British Battalion of the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. Coming from the valleys all across South Wales, they brought with them a political tradition unique in Britain in its combination of trade union militancy, radical extra-parliamentary activity and internationalism. Hywel Francis draws on a wide variety of contemporary sources to paint a vivid picture of the tumultuous politics of South Wales in the 1920s and 1930s - the context for the decision made by so many to volunteer. The book describes the process of volunteering, the militant role played by the Welsh volunteers, and the mass movements of political solidarity with Spain within Wales. It also includes many illustrations, and reproduces letters written by volunteers to their relatives and friends back in Wales. This updated 2012 edition includes a new preface and a newly compiled complete list of all Welsh volunteers.

In 1983, two University Professors looked slightly bemused as they scanned the shelves of the South Wales Miners' Library. One said to the other, 'Do miners read Dickens?' We seek to answer that question, and a little more besides. This special fortieth anniversary volume chronicles the origins of the Library out of the remnants of the magnificent Workmen's Institute libraries, once described as 'the brains of the Coalfield', and charts its development over time to becoming a unique research and lifelong learning centre.

This legislative scrutiny report on the Children and Families Bill deals with issues to do with adoption and looked after children (Part 1 of the Bill), family justice (Part 2), Special Educational Needs (Part 3), the Children's Commissioner (Part 5) and statutory rights to shared parental leave and pay (Part 6). The Report also includes an analysis of two issues connected with the Energy Bill.

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.

Government response to HL 257/HC 1074, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780108475320)

This report discusses the implementation of the right of disabled people to independent living in the context of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which was ratified by the UK in 2009. It draws attention to a number of significant human rights issues, including: the need for freestanding legislation to protect the right to independent living in UK law; the effect of current reforms to benefits and services on the ability of disabled people to enjoy independent living; the role played by the UNCRPD in policy development and decision making at all levels of government; the use of equality impact assessments; the effects of devolution on implementation of the UNCRPD; and hate crime. The right to independent living does not exist as a freestanding right in UK law. Although it is protected and promoted to some extent by a matrix of rights, the Committee believes that this is not enough. It argues that the Government and other interested parties should immediately assess the need for, and feasibility of, legislation to establish independent living as a freestanding right. The Committee finds that reforms to benefits and services risk leaving disabled people without the support they need to live independently. It also finds that the Government had not conducted an assessment of the cumulative impact of current reforms on disabled people. This report urges them do so, and to report on the extent to which these reforms are enabling them and local authorities to comply with their obligations under the UNCRPD

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) calls for statutory clarification of law on disclosure of national security-sensitive material, but finds no case for more extensive change. The Government has failed to make the case for extending "closed material procedures" to all civil proceedings and to inquests: the Government has not demonstrated that the fairness concern on which it relies to justify the proposal is in fact a real and practical problem. The Committee believes that closed material procedures are inherently unfair and the proposals in the Green Paper are a radical departure from longstanding traditions of open justice and fairness. Nor does it accept that replacing the current law governing disclosure of sensitive material (the law of Public Interest Immunity, or "PII") with closed material procedures is justified. The rule of law requires that decisions about the disclosure of material in legal proceedings be taken by judges not ministers and the current legal framework of PII has not been shown to be inadequate. There is a case, however, for that legal framework to be made clearer in the way in which it applies to national security-sensitive material and the Committee suggests how that could be done by legislation and changes to the Coroners Rules and guidance. The Committee regrets that the Green Paper overlooks the very considerable impact of its proposals on the freedom and ability of the media to report on matters of public interest and concern.

This report scrutinises the extent to which the Government's amendments to the Bill reflect the Committee's recommendations made in their first report (HLP 59/HCP 372 session 2012/13 (ISBN 9780108476242)). To the extent that the Committee is not satisfied that they do, they recommend further amendments to the Bill for consideration at Report stage. They revisit two recommendation made which have not yet been reflected in the Bill: a requirement of judicial balancing within the closed material procedure (CMP) and a 'gisting' obligation. They recommend that the Bill be amended to ensure that a full judicial balancing of interests always takes place within the CMP, weighing the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice against the likely degree of harm to the interests of national security when deciding which material should be heard in closed session and which in open session. The Committee also agrees with the Special Advocates that if there is to be a power to hold a CMP in civil proceedings, there should be an express statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a gist of the closed material that is sufficient to enable him to give effective instructions to his Special Advocate. They therefore recommend that the Bill be amended to impose such gisting obligations