Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

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 the American context of 1776 that in free countries,

“the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other”.

Two hundred and fifty years on, that is being put to the test every day in the United States; the committee was only too aware of that. As we have heard already, there are passions attached to differing interpretations of the rule of law—the vocabulary of thick and thin—to the extent that it would have been very easy to fall prey to falling into an academic and sterile hole, but we did not. We did debate where the boundaries of the rule of law might fall, but we focused on what the rule of law means as people experience it in their daily lives, and that is why it is important. We also looked at the challenges to the justice system and to Parliament itself. We looked hard at the contract wired into our culture, which has meant that trust in the law to keep us safe has lasted for centuries. But there was no escaping the evidence that this reciprocal culture is at risk. That evidence suggests that disrespect for the law has been emboldened since Covid, with the paradox of draconian legislation that was felt by many not to have been evenly applied.

There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, alluded to, that the infamous attack on judges as “enemies of the people” some years ago gave a green light for attacks on the independence of the judiciary. We were particularly shocked by the evidence he has already cited, and by the very stark statement of the Lady Chief Justice that judges now need to have “moral courage”. I would say physical courage as well, in light of the evidence.

Secondly, the evidence showed that the culture of trust in the law to work for everyone equally is also fragile. To defeat tyranny and anarchy, justice must be seen to work: to be accessible, effective and fair. It is a truism, but like all truisms it is actually true. The evidence suggests that for many people, this is simply not the case. Our witnesses came from across the spectrum—judges and community activists—and all agreed that free legal advice was virtually invisible in some communities. In the whole of Greater Manchester there is only one law centre for 2.8 million people. Most advice is now limited to information; it does not go as far as legal assistance. That failure is compounded by documented cuts to legal aid; the horrendous waiting lists for the courts, including people who are on remand; the physical disintegration—the decay—of the legal estate; and the growth of crimes that are anything but victimless.

No wonder people feel that the idea of justice is meaningless as far as they are concerned. The system itself feels disempowered. Part of the problem is that the law is not taught early enough, widely enough or broadly enough. Our recommendations address all these issues. I have alerted the Minister to a specific question: what happened to the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group, which was set up by the MoJ?

For this place, the most profound question is: how confident can we be in our own future as the bulwark against tyranny and anarchy? The Victorians were better informed about Parliament than we are. What has happened to the political reporters or the serious commentators? They have virtually disappeared. Do Members of Parliament, or we in this House, know enough about the constitution, the legal system and what constitutes legal certainty, to be clear where the risks are? Do we know who is accountable for safeguarding the constitution? Do our laws stand the test of the basic requirements: that they should be clear, accessible, prospective, predictable, possible to obey, free of conflict? Does Parliament use its power to interrogate Ministers and to hold them to account? If I were marking this paper, I would give the House a C+ at best.

The volume of legislation is only one issue. Take pensions regulation; it has grown from 3,000 pages to 165,000 pages since 1990. Worse is the sheer complexity, which defeats even the most distinguished lawyers. I think with fear of the forthcoming legislation on leasehold reform. The loss of Keeling schedules, the delays in implementing consolidation, and the accumulative legislation required to correct and revise mean that few can find meaning, let alone definitive meaning. On the other hand, equally dismaying are skeletal Bills that evade interrogation, and careless delegation that hides decisions and cannot be changed. These are serious and familiar charges in this House—this is our special subject. We need not to debate more but to act now. As the report emphasises, Parliament must take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and, I add, visibly.

I return to Tom Paine, who said that

“the Constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, and every political physician will advise a different medicine”.

He was right about the constitution but would be wrong about our report, because it was very clear in its diagnosis and prescription. We are seeking not to blame but to identify and incentivise responsibility for ensuring that the rule of law is not an abstract construction but is positively promoted in every respect.

Prisoners: Reoffending

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

Reducing reoffending is my top priority. To break the cycle of crime, we are strengthening the rehabilitation offer in prison and the community, including increasing probation funding by 45%. We are recruiting more staff, expanding community housing and ramping up electronic monitoring—and that includes alcohol tags. Supporting prisoners into work is also something I care deeply about. Within six months of being in office, I launched regional employment councils, bringing together for the first time businesses, prisons, probation and the DWP to support offenders into work.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that very positive Answer. I do not think anyone in the House underestimates the personal and professional concern the Minister has with reducing reoffending, which is why he is probably as concerned as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I that four out of every 10 prisoners still reoffend. Can he comment on that incidence? It seems that one of the problems is that universal credit is a digital benefit, and prison restrictions on computers mean that prisoners cannot easily access computers to make benefit claims for housing or jobs, for example, until they are released. In addition, they have to provide a verifiable address, an email address and a bank account. Is it not possible for the DWP and prison staff to get together to sort out these details well in advance so that when prisoners are released they can access the benefits to which they are entitled and get help with housing and jobs? It seems to me that otherwise we are in a situation where this is going to go on indefinitely because they are bound to drift back, at great cost to themselves and to us, into reoffending.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. We inherited a very difficult situation. Having been around prisons for 25 years, I know that we need to get to a point where it is sustainable, and that includes when people leave prison and find a job, housing and support. Since I came into the role, I have rolled out the DWP work coaches who engage with prisoners up to 12 weeks before they are released so that they get on to the system, but the other problem is whether they have a digital identity. When I was setting up the employment advisory boards, this was a clear problem, so we set up the banking and identity administrators. It is a mouthful of a job title, but they do a really important job. They get people bank accounts and driving licences, and get them on to the DWP systems. I have met a number of people in prison who, for the first time in their lives, have a bank account. But there is still much more we need to do. There are too many people leaving prison with no job and no house, and without access to alcohol and mental health treatment, as I saw in Bronzeville prison last week.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, it is a truism of politics generally—and, no doubt, of your Lordships’ House—that it is easier to make a long speech than a short one. In respect of Her late Majesty, all of us could speak at length with enthusiasm, passion and not a little sadness about our experiences of her, both closely and at a distance. I will restrict myself to two comments about not the personal relationship with her but what she achieved and represented. One is about international relations, which are an important matter for me. The other is about the Irish peace process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, just referred.

When Her Majesty came to the Throne, after two World Wars, there was a huge focus on creating an international rules-based order. There was a particular focus on the United Nations. For a long time, that was and continued to be an inspiring hope—perhaps until relatively recent times—because the United Nations Security Council is and was to be the pinnacle of international law. Now we find that two of its permanent members are, by any account, guilty of crimes against humanity. Were that to be the case of any of the members of our Supreme Court, we would lose faith in that jurisdiction.

Others of Her Majesty’s Ministers focused a great deal on getting us into the European project or, more latterly, getting us out of it. But she had a different focus during all those years. She was supportive of what her Governments were doing, of course, but it was the Commonwealth that was her particular passion, as the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, rightly said. It is my conviction that, had it not been for her passionate commitment and that of the rest of the Royal Family, we probably would not have a Commonwealth today. Instead, we have an important network of relationships that some countries that were not even members of the British Empire have applied to join.

Yesterday, I got off a plane to hear of Her Majesty’s death after a visit to Singapore at the invitation of the Singaporean Government. I have often found myself being critical of them. It seemed to me that they were not living up to some of the principles I felt were important. I came back, however, with a different set of feelings. They understand China in a way that we do not. They have a fellow feeling with India that we cannot have. They understand Asia and the West. If we are not to fall into a terrible war with China and others in the East, we desperately need that depth of understanding. It is an understanding that Her late Majesty the Queen had very deeply.

I speak of the Irish peace process. In her Golden Jubilee year, 2002, Her Majesty visited not just the Parliament here but the Senedd in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. I was advised by the Northern Ireland Office, however, that she would not be visiting the Northern Ireland Assembly of which I was Speaker because the Northern Ireland Office felt that it would cause difficulties. I said, “I see. You’re wanting to create a constitutional crisis.” “Oh no,” they said, “We’re trying to avoid trouble.” I said, “Well, how do you think unionists will respond if Her Majesty can go to every other Parliament but not to Stormont?” They said, “But it won’t go well.” I replied, “Just back off for a little while and give me a chance to talk to those involved.”

I talked to Dr Paisley, who was very wroth because he was convinced that it would not be possible. I talked to others. Eventually, I talked to Alex Maskey, the then Chief Whip of Sinn Féin. I said, “Alex, you know, I want to be able to invite the Irish President here but I cannot invite her if Her Majesty cannot come.” “Ah,” he said, “We’ll have a chat about it.” So the ard chomhairle of Sinn Féin got together. You can imagine them speaking in Dublin about Her Majesty’s visit to Belfast. They came back to me, and the answer was clear: “We will deal with it with a dignified detachment. We won’t be able to be there but we won’t create trouble.”

On the morning of Her Majesty’s visit, Gerry Kelly was interviewed on the BBC. My first response was a sinking heart. What would Gerry say? He was asked whether he would meet her. He said, “Well, if she’s going to hand the place over, I’d be very happy to meet with her, but I don’t expect that’s what she’s coming for. So we will deal with it with a dignified detachment.” Of course, that is what happened; they dealt with it appropriately.

We went on to have the remarkable visit to Dublin and the meeting with Mary McAleese. Then, in 2012, we had the visit to Belfast where Her Majesty shook hands with Martin McGuinness. In 2002, it was dignified detachment. In 2012, it was dignified engagement. None of that would have happened had she not, by her whole life, person and example, demonstrated dignity in relations and respect for and mutual recognition of those with whom she and her country disagreed. She was a remarkable person. She has given those of us in my part of the United Kingdom a remarkable legacy, but we are fortunate because King Charles III is also part of her legacy. God save the King.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it has never been a greater privilege to be a part of this House and listen to some extraordinary speeches; they will last as long as this House does, I think. With humility, I want to share some of my own experiences.

Last night, when we heard that extraordinarily magisterial and immensely moving speech from the new King, King Charles III, he made us remember some different aspects of our late Queen. He spoke of

“a promise of destiny kept”

and renewed that same promise of lifelong service. Of course, one of those promises that the Queen made was the one she made to the people of Aberfan, after the disaster in 1966 when 116 children and 28 adults died, that she would return. It was one of the defining moments of her reign and was not without controversy. For those of us who come from those valleys, it marked an extraordinary relationship. At that terrible time, the people of Aberfan were immensely and uniquely comforted by her. She was deeply affected; she sat quietly with them, sometimes quite silently.

One of the bereaved families said, “She was with us from the beginning”, and she more than kept her promise to return. She went back four times, once to open the new school. She understood and paid tribute to the dignity and the indomitable spirit that characterises the people of that village and the surrounding valleys, and that rare gift exemplified so much of what made her so special to everyone she met. She understood grief. She had been brought up never to show her emotions, but she knew what people felt, and people knew that she knew. She knew that silence is more eloquent than words and she taught us that there is a unique value in silence.

She also had a terrific zest for life. I experienced that because I am a member of the trade union of previous Baronesses in Waiting. She treated us with enormous respect and helped us understand the role. The humility in being present to greet a distinguished overseas Head of State who is expecting to meet the Queen and finds himself instead meeting an overenthusiastic and completely unknown Baroness is something you never quite forget. It teaches you a life lesson about expectations.

Her Majesty honoured her promises and the sweep of history in so many other ways. One of the charities with which she had the longest association was the Charterhouse, the great medieval charity in the City so well known to Members of this House—there are many of its previous governors in this House. The Charterhouse has stood for 400 years as a symbol of philanthropy, one of the four buildings in London that Elizabeth I would recognise. There have been royal governors for 400 years. Elizabeth I made her base there after the death of Mary. For 400 years, Thomas Sutton’s will has been honoured in the community of elderly men and women who live out their final days there. I am privileged to be a governor and to have that duty of care now.

The late Queen’s first visit was in 1958, after the restoration following the Blitz. Her final visit, some 60 years later in 2017, was to open our new museum, which revealed the Charterhouse in its full 700-year history. Like every governor, she would have had three brothers in her care. She caused some confusion occasionally by referring to them. Yesterday, our brothers honoured her and the love they feel for her when they tolled the Charterhouse bell 96 times for their royal governor, who joined hands over the centuries with that other great Elizabeth, 400 years ago. I have an image of those two Elizabeths sitting in the great chamber at the Charterhouse, conspiring together about how to get the best from their councillors.

She also honoured her people in other ways. During her 60th Jubilee, in 2012, the first excursion that she made was to Burnley, on a freezing day. She travelled up the canal on the “Pride of Sefton”, with Prince Philip and the then Prince Charles, to see the transformation of Burnley mill into a new centre of technical education. It was one of many such projects to which our present King was committed for so long and with such success, and it enabled us at the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to bring back to life and to repurpose significant historic buildings which could bring new life to communities such as Burnley. The mill was put to work again, for another generation to learn how to master the future.

That day, in that mill, on the threshold of its new life, the Queen spoke of her immense pride in all that her son had achieved, not just in the restoration of our physical heritage but in empowering so many young people, through the Prince’s Trust, to find the confidence and success to make their own place in history.

It is no wonder that we have all felt so completely overwhelmed by hearing the accounts of people we have met, or those people I saw at Victoria Station this morning armed with bunches of flowers and on their way to Buckingham Palace. We are unmoored by the death of a Queen for whom duty was her signature on a page of history, as well as her love. We now have a new King who shares her values and who will, as he said last night, bring loyalty and love, warmth and empathy in connection. We are extremely lucky to have lived in her reign, and we will be lucky to live in his.

God save the King.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real privilege to take part in this debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the Bill and the way in which she introduced it. It was particularly moving to hear the words in support of the Bill of our dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Field, as he lies dying, and to hear the witness of so many in this House who have had such profound and painful personal experiences. I have not had that experience. My support for the Bill is based on a series of other experiences and on evidence and ethics.

One of the huge changes since the Joffe Bill in 2003 is, as one palliative care doctor said to me, that death has come out of the closet. It is now so much easier for doctors and patients to talk about what makes life valuable and to go beyond the metaphor to the deeper layers of fear and suffering. In short, dying well has become an extension of living well. This change has, I believe, been formed and informed by the fact that more and more countries are making the choice to choose legalised assisted dying. Australia is not a particularly radical country. It has deep religious roots, yet only one state in Australia now does not have assisted dying, New South Wales, which, as we speak, is debating a similar Bill. As we have heard, the medical profession is changing its mind, but it is still far behind public opinion.

In short, the debate in favour of assisted dying has changed to become more inclusive, balanced, powerful and evidenced. The arguments against have not changed and I believe that they are losing their force, because they remain, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said in his powerful speech, largely speculative. The assertion that assisted dying is the enemy of good palliative care is countered by the evidence from, for example, Palliative Care Australia that when dying people can have some control of their final days, palliative care becomes better, not worse. The assertion that the Bill is the start of a slippery slope is contradicted by the fact that there is no rush to take up the option of assisted dying, because overwhelmingly what people want is to have the ability not to make the choice to die but to have the choice when the palliative care doctor says, “I can do no more.”

I support the Bill not because I reject the idea of the sanctity of life, because there is more evidence for assisted dying than against it or because I believe in a perfect world where we would be entitled to everything we want. It is because I believe that the Bill is profoundly and urgently ethical. I support it because it seeks to put the mercy of the law around people who are now beyond its protection, people who could go on living but who must be well enough to travel to choose to die earlier in Switzerland—a law that forces relatives and doctors into criminal choices. We might all rage against the dying of the light, but what we all want is to go gently.