Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 9 Jul 2026 · 29 speeches · Official Report
Motion to Take Note
Moved by
That this House takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee The rule of law: holding the line against tyranny and anarchy (13th Report, HL Paper 211, Session 2024-26).
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate as chair of the Constitution Committee. Noble Lords will have heard many times politicians and others praying in aid adherence to the rule of law and avowing its importance. Yet very few people seem to understand what it represents and how fundamental it is to our constitution. The Constitution Committee conducted a long and detailed inquiry into the rule of law and published its report towards the end of last year. This was prompted by a sense that the rule of law was being threatened in many parts of the world. We wanted to understand the extent to which we in the UK should also be concerned by that. It was a privilege to chair the committee during the inquiry, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to it-our witnesses and my fellow members, whose knowledge and experience greatly strengthened the final report, and some of whom are speaking today. I am sorry that time constraints meant that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had to scratch. They played an important part in our deliberations. I mention in particular our excellent secretariat and clerks, who delivered our witnesses, our drafts and good humour, even when we became embroiled in the weeds of the subject. Over nine months, we received more than 100 written submissions and heard from judges, practising lawyers, the police, journalists and young people. We deliberately sought views from people not normally...
My Lords, it was a great privilege to serve on the Constitution Committee and a great pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, particularly for this important report. As the House might expect, he conducted the committee with tremendous brio and a great sense of democracy within the committee as well. I apologise to the House, because I am bound to repeat and to reinforce much of what he has said about the significance of the report and the way we pursued it. It is the singular task of the Constitution Committee to hold the elements of constitutional democracy up to the light, to show how it works for real people. This was one of the most penetrating outcomes of that very important report. Six months on, with the Iran war more unsettled than ever and the rule of law increasingly embattled, it is paramount that we in the UK are unconditional in our commitment to the principle and the practice of it at home and abroad. That is why this inquiry was so important and so timely, but it was a brave choice and a brave chair. It was a very challenging inquiry in breadth and depth, reaching back to the roots of our democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, but also reaching into a very uncertain future. Tom Paine, whom I lay claim to as another resident of Lewes, would have applauded the title and particularly the subtitle- The Rule of Law: Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy -because it articulates his own deep conviction in...
I declare an interest as a serving member of the supplementary panel of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The report of the Constitution Committee, to which I contributed as a member, is a timely reminder of the importance of the rule of law as a vital constitutional safeguard. It is something that is largely taken for granted, but that it has been the subject of so much discussion in recent years is itself a sign of growing concern about its vulnerability. I congratulate our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his skilful navigation through a subject that is apt to be diverted into academic byways and alleyways by focusing on the practical. In the few minutes available, I will touch briefly on two subjects: the independence of the judiciary, to which there has already been reference, and a discrete aspect of access to justice. Judicial independence is central to the rule of law. It is reflected in the judicial oath to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”. Judicial independence enables judges to administer justice impartially and to treat equally those who appear before them. Equality before the law is a cardinal principle. Our report noted the importance of judicial independence-independence from the Executive and Parliament, of course, but also from all who might seek to put pressure on courts, not just politicians. That includes the press, large corporations, trade...
My Lords, I am told that we should never start a speech with an apology, but I sincerely apologise if I have to leave before the end of the debate to get back up to Scotland-I had not expected the debate to be taken so late. I did not want to withdraw, as I was very keen to participate in the debate on this important topic, as a member of the Constitution Committee at the time. It is a vital topic, though I was a bit sceptical about it. As members of the committee will know, I thought it would be hijacked by the lawyers into a very dry topic, but it has proved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, to be a really important issue. This is an excellent report from the Constitution Committee, ably chaired, may I say, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He and I have crossed swords in Ayrshire from time to time, but I have great respect for the way he chaired the committee through this report. The most striking observation from the report is that the greatest threat to the rule of law does not come from a dramatic crisis but can emerge gradually through declining institutional standards, weakened scrutiny and political rhetoric which encourages the loss of faith in our democratic institutions. Take the case of Henry Nowak. Okay, the police failed in their duty, but they are being held accountable and, as the report says, individual failures within an institution should not be used as an excuse to undermine that institution completely. Sadly, in the Nowak case, before the...
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure not only to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who, happily, is restored to full health, but to find oneself on the same side of the argument as him, because for a good many years in another place, I had to suffer being on the wrong side of the argument. That was very uncomfortable. I also join with all the other members of the committee who have spoken in paying tribute to our chair and to the other members. The other day, I read that Michelle Obama said that she had never met a white man who suffered from imposter syndrome. All I can tell you is that when the noble and learned Lords on our committee got going, I certainly felt imposter syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy, and Lord Burnett, are all wonderful, but they are also practical people as well as being very good lawyers. We have heard from two of the other members already, and we can all be proud of this report. It is fitting that we debate this fundamental matter in the same week that we grieve for Lord Mackay who, if you wanted an embodiment of what the rule of law meant-practical but also learned-he was it. I will not go into too much detail, because I would get in trouble with former colleagues, but there were a couple of occasions in the Cabinet in which I was privileged to serve with him when more robust colleagues were going off in one direction or another. That beautiful Scottish brogue brought them back on to the safe...
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable-
Noble.
Oh! I did it wrong again. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to echo his words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern-the very embodiment of wisdom and decency, and a great Scots lawyer. It was a privilege to have known him. It was an interesting challenge to be a member of the Constitution Committee, which undertook the inquiry on which this report is based. We have already heard from some of the distinguished noble Lords who served on the committee. I not only agree with all their points but thank them for all that I learned while sitting in their company during this inquiry. It is a widely held misconception that examining aspects of the constitution is nothing more than a dry old academic exercise undertaken by dry old academics. It is not. This was a genuine inquiry. We explored a very wide range of issues and aspects, and we asked questions to which we did not already know the answers. We were often surprised by the conclusions to which we came after having considered the evidence. Why do this report and this debate matter? I will make three brief points in answer to that question. First, they matter because one of our important conclusions was that safeguarding the rule of law is a shared responsibility. That responsibility lies not only with judges, lawyers, Ministers, parliamentarians, civil servants and public authorities but with every citizen. To maintain a free society, we must nurture a widespread culture of respect for the principles of the rule of...
As the first person to speak this afternoon who can claim no part whatever in the production of this report, I independently express my view, and the views of many to whom I have spoken, on its excellence and that it needed doing and that what it said needed saying. All those who produced it deserve a great thank you. Having said that, I want to deal with one topic, partly to reinforce the strength of this report in one minute area. I will draw on what I have observed happening elsewhere in Europe, and on how steps have been taken to undermine the rule of law; we must learn from that. The central lesson we learn is that those who seek to undermine the rule of law make the judiciary the prime focus of their plans and actions. I will give your Lordships three examples. First, you weaken public confidence, primarily through attacking judges through the media, exploiting inefficiency in the courts or delays, and attacking what might seem incautious decisions or incautious extrajudicial statements. The second is undermining the self-governance and unitary structure of the judiciary. The third is appointing compliant candidates to high judicial office and then using disciplinary proceedings and other measures to remove strong judges. These are the means that are used, of which there are readily available examples, particularly in Hungary and Poland, of what has happened in neighbouring countries in the last few years. It has all been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed...
My Lords, the matters we debate today are both sombre and urgent. They are sombre because, as the committee’s report highlights, the challenges faced by the rule of law in contemporary society are very grave. To give only one example, the then Lord Chancellor said in evidence to us that the justice system “is not worthy of the name ‘justice’”- surely a breathtaking condemnation of the present state of affairs. They are urgent not least because the evidence to the committee suggested widespread public disillusion with the surely basic idea that the laws that protect us all will actually be enforced and evenly applied. Today I will highlight the rule of law as experienced by the ordinary citizen in daily life. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to whose chairmanship I pay my personal tribute, has indicated, the “rule of law” as a phrase does not just mean protection against the arbitrary power of the state, vital though that is; it is essential to the everyday functioning of a peaceful and orderly society. Every citizen is expected to obey the law, and the counterpart-the compact, the bargain, that underpins the whole of society-is that those who do not obey the law must be held to account. But, as others have said, if that does not happen and laws can be broken with impunity, public confidence in the very idea of a society governed by the rule of law is weakened, leading ultimately to the anarchy referred to in the title of the committee’s report. As the committee...
My Lords, as the second Member speaking today who did not contribute to this excellent report, I also commend the Constitution Committee. It focuses on the common ground that we have on the rule of law and on practical challenges. I will pick out a few themes. First, the committee rightly says that judicial review should not be presented as a blocker to government action. The Government, in their response last February, accepted that but pointed out quite fairly that judicial review can cause delays to government projects. They referred to changes they were considering to increase efficiency and certainty. Can the Minister update the House on those plans? This might be quite urgent, because the latest Ministry of Justice figures show some positive trends in the length of civil proceedings-the Government must be commended for that-but also reveal a dramatic increase in judicial review applications in the first quarter of 2026. There were around 1,300 new applications in that quarter, up 98% on the same quarter of 2025, and there was also an increase throughout 2025. Can the Minister tell us more about the reasons for this increase and what the Government are doing to ensure that the courts can cope? Secondly, as we heard before, attacks on judges undermine the rule of law. The same is true also of attacks on practising lawyers. I am afraid that no political side is immune from those. From one side, there have been attacks on lawyers acting for wealthy clients or sanctioned...
My Lords, I am very glad to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate. I was not a member of the committee-in fact, I have always wanted to be a member of the committee, so I hope my remarks will not rule me out from consideration in future-but I applaud the report and the speech of the noble Lord introducing it. Incidentally, I pay my own tribute to Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was widely admired in the household in which I grew up. We are rightly proud of our legal heritage. As a matter of fact, earlier this afternoon we had a debate about the UK’s role in the space economy, and one of the aspects--Members may not realise-is that, looking ahead, we very much hope that the UK can be a centre for international arbitration and the regulation of space, which is going to become more and more important. I will direct my few remarks to that part of the report that deals with Parliament and its role in making the law. I was brought up to believe in the supremacy of the House of Commons and parliamentary sovereignty, but I am bound to say that my first visit to the Royal Courts of Justice gave me a very different view of the law. Given the eminence of the legal Members of the House here, I hope they will not mind if I say that my memory is of going to the Royal Courts of Justice with my dad, who had been elected for the fourth time as the Member for Bristol South East and was refused entry to the House of Commons-the only Member in the 20th century to be refused entry,...
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. One of the key findings of this excellent report is summarised as follows: “Public confidence in the judiciary is vital for trust in the fair administration of justice. This requires that judges make decisions independently of bias and external influence, and that they are perceived to do so. However, the committee stated confidence was being increasingly challenged by political rhetoric that criticised the judiciary, and this was being amplified on social media”. This is the aspect of the report I would like to talk about today: what is legitimate and illegitimate criticism of the judiciary, particularly the senior judiciary? In chapter 4 of the report, in the section headed “Attacks on judges and the judiciary”, it rightly says that: “The judiciary, as with any other state institution, should not be immune from scrutiny or criticism”. The report goes on to say that, while attacks on judgments are fair game, attacks on judges are not. It particularly condemns attacks that claim a decision is based on a judge’s political views or bias. The Lady Chief Justice is quoted in the report as singling out “newspaper articles about ‘outrageous judicial overreach’”, and those which used the words “lefty” and “liberal”, and described decisions as “crazy”. The implication is that such attacks, which attribute political bias to judges, originate for the most part with the populist right, not the left. Frances Gibb...
My Lords, I echo other non-contributors who have expressed appreciation of the outstanding report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his committee. I thank them for the very substantial work that clearly went into it. The wide scope of the rule of law, and the multifarious topics it covers, were well illustrated by the excellent speeches that preceded this one. I agreed with virtually all that was said-“virtually” being a cautious lawyer’s word in these circumstances. The rule of law is not only an essential ingredient; it may be the most important ingredient of a civilised, just and peaceful society. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned in his speech, of serious economic value to people. The 2024 Nobel Prize was awarded to three economists who demonstrated that the rule of law and sound institutions are fundamental to sustained long-term growth. This is supported by a 2015 survey of more than 300 large international companies carried out by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, of which I have the honour of being president, and the Economist Intelligence Unit. The survey established that the rule of law was the third most important factor in deciding where to invest, behind the ease of doing business and a stable political environment-and both of those are strongly influenced by the rule of law. However, the rule of law is as potentially precarious as it is precious. Thus, it is not something that has much traction with the average citizen....
My Lords, I have too little personal experience of Lord Mackay to be able to say anything substantial. But as a former church leader speaking to him as a wee free, we had animated and friendly conversation on more than one issue. At that level and in those terms, I add my own expression of admiration for, and enjoyment of the memory of, Lord Mackay. I am a member of the Constitution Committee, the fourth to speak in this debate. We are restoring the focus. For a report of this kind to have generated a debate of this kind, with this divergence of views, is a tribute to the report. I thank all those who have spoken. I said in my membership of the committee that I am not from a political background; others around the table were. I am not from a legal background; others around the table were. So I must be vox populi-except that I had the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who never hesitates to be the vox populi himself. It has been, for me, a learning experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, talked about being a member of a committee where she had as much to learn as to contribute, and I certainly feel that way myself. Indeed, I felt it was like a prolonged seminar. I remember signing up for a lengthy seminar series on 14th-century Icelandic literature in 1962. I felt then as I feel now: that the learning I acquired in the course of that has equipped me for life in all its shades and colours. It has been a privilege to be part of the committee chaired by the noble Lord,...
My Lords, I am not a member of the Constitution Committee, but I was its first chair. I welcome the committee’s excellent report and endorse all the recommendations it makes. As I shall argue, it deserves a wide audience. The committee provides a first-class analysis of the meaning of the rule of law. It is a concept that is core to liberal democracy. As the committee recognises, the basis of it predates the development of democracy by centuries; it is at the heart of the liberal part of the phrase. It can be traced back to the origins of the English polity and, I would argue, is recognisable in the coronation oath of the 10th century. As the report recognises, in essence, there are two problems in upholding the rule of law: one is in the failings of the institutions of the state to ensure that it is upheld and, crucially, seen to be upheld; the other is a public lack of knowledge not so much of the core concept but of its centrality and the means by which it is upheld. The failure of public institutions to uphold the rule of law, be it through partiality or inadequate resources, gives succour to those who seek to undermine confidence in the British political system. This is exacerbated by the nature of social media and AI. Two weeks ago, we debated the challenges posed to our system of government by disinformation, not least disinformation disseminated by bodies opposed to our way of life. Disinformation is a major challenge to a democratic polity. People now have short...
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton. This is one of those places-probably the only place-where you follow a speaker who was actually on your reading list for constitutional and administrative law. I do not know why I feel the need to say that I passed-no distinction, by the way, but I did pass. I know that the noble Lord was a very young professor, writing at a very early time-certainly when he appeared on my list. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talked about how this report was put together. I must be speaker number eight or nine who is not on the committee, but I am willing to see how valuable the report is because it does something very difficult, which is to look at the thin and thick concepts of the rule of law. On the one hand is the profound idea of what the rule of law is at the highest level, the Bingham level, and on the other there is the day-to-day stuff that people have to deal with, and which my noble friend the Minister has to deal with in her department: delays, access to justice, access to legal aid where it is available-the nitty-gritty stuff that people have to deal with, and have had to deal with for a long time, but now it becomes more acute and difficult. The report brings together both these things, and noble Lords have spoken eloquently about it. So much has been covered. I will alight on one experience of mine that might contextualise what is happening here in the UK, to give some perspective. In the 2010s I was...
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to our much-loved noble friend, the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the powerful call to action that he and his committee have produced in this report. Naturally I agree with my former tutor and noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this is a major report, not just in terms of its 93 pages and almost 30 recommendations but in its significance. It does, as noble Lords and my noble friend have said, deserve a wide audience. In the few minutes allocated, I will focus on the conclusions and recommendations that relate to a section of society all too often regarded as insignificant. This is absolutely not a criticism of the report, but it underlines my point because, as far as I can see, disabled people did not figure in it at all. I am not suggesting that there should be some tokenistic checklist of protected characteristic groups who must always be mentioned, regardless of the subject matter. Rather, I would suggest that many disabled people’s life experiences would actually support some of the report’s observations, conclusions and recommendations. I will focus my remarks on paragraphs 26, 49 and 50 in particular. With regards to paragraph 26 and the role everyone has to play in upholding the rule of law and the importance of our understanding “what a society that displays the rule of law looks like in...
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in this debate. In a world where so-called “strong men” are ruling with tyranny and anarchy around the globe, in total disregard of the rules-based international order, we should consider ourselves hugely fortunate to live in a country where compliance with the rule of law is still considered important. The Constitution Committee’s report is an invaluable reminder of the central part the rule of law plays, or should play, in the way our constitution works in practice. Because the rule of law is so critical, and compliance-or non-compliance-with it has consequences for all of us, I am going to start at the very end of the committee’s report, which recommends a “huge improvement” in the way it is taught as part of citizenship education. That point has already been made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I am not going to repeat the points that they have made, albeit that was the first part of my speech-that is one of the hazards of coming towards the end of the pecking order. I should declare an interest, since my Private Members’ Bill would require citizenship to be taught by trained teachers at all the key stages of the national curriculum. I will elaborate on why citizenship education is so important. Engaging our young people with the constitution will help to combat their apathy towards...
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, but it is alarming that respect for the rule of law, once unquestioned, should be increasingly fragile, and that this vital requirement of our ordered and free society is under threat. If belief in the rule of law is eroded, that society becomes less free and less ordered, endangering us all. This thoughtful report-and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and his committee on their work, and him on his excellent speech introducing this debate-mentions the most egregious problems. They are summed up by what has been perceived as “two-tier justice”. There is much debate to be had about whether those perceptions-of the police as enforcers of our laws, and of the judiciary, who dispense justice-are real or illusions. The report mentions crimes far too familiar, such as mobile phone theft, Rolex rippers and the epidemic of shoplifting, which appear to continue with general impunity. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shinkwin mentioned that posse of cyclists around England, not just in London, who seem to think the rules of the road do not apply to them. The “tyranny” in the subtitle of the report may, for the moment, be hyperbole, but the “anarchy” is brewing nicely. The report, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, has said, gives a very good definition of the rule of the law. However, to communicate the idea unequivocally and effectively, it must be kept simple. Let me presume to suggest what the decent,...
My Lords, there has been unanimity around this Chamber in welcoming the fact that we are debating the rule of law in the week in which we honour and commemorate a great upholder of the rule of law, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. There is also a degree of unity around the Chamber in welcoming the report and the work and leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has enabled us as a committee to produce such a welcomed report. What is the rule of law as it is understood in the British constitution? It is not the rule of lawyers and it is not the takeover by judges of the policy-making role of political leadership. It is, primarily, the mechanism by which the use and misuse of power are regulated. That applies to the use of power by the state but also to the use of power by commercial businesses on which we rely to deliver public services, and sometimes to protect us from aggressive neighbours. We expect a lot from it. As Lord Sumption has put it, “the rule of law is a body of principles without which we cannot exist as a society because, in their absence, human relations are nothing more than a contest in the deployment of power”. Although the rule of law helps us to safeguard democracy, the two concepts are not the same. It is at least theoretically possible for the rule of law to operate in a society in which laws are not made democratically. We had that with the suffragettes, for example. We had the rule of law for centuries before most people could stand for election...
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for securing what has been an excellent debate. I join other noble Lords in thanking members of the Constitution Committee, many of whom are currently in their place. I must say, in a similar vein to the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who talked about legal eminence, that it is a huge honour and privilege to be speaking in a debate on the rule of law following no fewer than four noble and learned Lords, as defined by the Companion due to their previous seniority and renowned expertise within the judiciary. At the start of this Parliament, the Government declared that the rule of law would be the “lodestar” of their term-words which commanded support from all sides of your Lordships’ House. But surely the true measure of government is found not in ministerial opening speeches but in the legislation that follows. With all due respect to this Government, there appears to have been a deviation from that very lodestar. The committee reminds us that the rule of law performs a dual function. It protects citizens against arbitrary power, but it also protects society against disorder and lawlessness. It is the line held against both tyranny and anarchy. It is difficult to point to a better illustration of the first danger than the Government’s courts modernisation Bill. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition readily acknowledge the serious pressures facing the criminal courts. Victims deserve timely...
My Lords, I begin, as have so many of your Lordships, by saying a few words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Many have spoken of his career as having been one of exceptional distinction, and observed that he served this country with great integrity and wisdom. I echo that and add a brief memory of my own. I met Lord Mackay a number of times when he was Lord Chancellor and I was a member of the Bar Council. I say I was a member-I was in fact the most lowly and undistinguished member of the Young Barristers’ Committee, having been called to the Bar about a year before and being still in pupillage at the time. Lord Mackay was unfailingly kind and courteous to me and always asked me what I thought. It really was the mark of the man to notice the least significant as well as the most important. We send the best wishes and great sympathies of your Lordships’ House to his family. He is going to be greatly missed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for having chaired the Constitution Committee during its inquiry into this important topic and for securing this very interesting debate. The issues debated today seem to take on ever greater significance in modern times. This has been reflected in the contributions of all those who have participated and it has been, as one would expect, a debate of exceptionally high quality. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the members of the committee for their thoughtful report. The Government recognise the growing public interest in...
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all those who spoke in the debate. I am particularly pleased that the Minister again said that the Government have unequivocal support for the rule of law. I never thought they would not have unequivocal support, but it is good to reaffirm these things. In that context, I very much welcome the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to our deliberations; it is a pleasure to see him today. I was struck, early on in the debate, by something said between the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is a long-term, well-known, political heavyweight bruiser of the Labour Party and, of course, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave is renowned for his intellectual integrity and great skills, and yet the two of them got together on this committee and agreed wholeheartedly with every aspect of this. None of us should be surprised by this, because the rule of law is genuinely universal. It is part of the reason we are here. My noble friend Lord Blackwater asked why we are debating this subject. We occasionally do need to reaffirm the underlying beliefs of the rule of law and how important they are. That is why I also very much welcome what the noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said. They joined this debate, saying that they had not been on the committee but felt moved to do so because we discussed some really important matters that...
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 6.31 pm.