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

Lord Blackwater Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blackwater (Con)]

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, law-abiding majority of our people understand by the term, the better to understand how to reverse erosion of the ideal.

First, there must be a body of law that we widely accept. Such laws have authority if they have long existed as part of the common law, handed down by courts and accepted by Parliament and people; or, they will have been passed in the other place and agreed by this House before receiving the Sovereign’s assent. That process leaves, or should leave, no cause for complaint.

Secondly, the police must enforce the law with absolute equality. Respect for the rule of law cannot endure accusations of two-tier policing. We must not, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier, prejudge the inquiry into the conduct of officers in the shocking case of Henry Nowak, murdered last December. However, many have seen the bodycam footage, which raises deeply disturbing questions about training and the attitudes and practices encouraged by senior officers. It is vital that these questions are answered.

Thirdly, as well as people having ready access to justice, the judiciary must be perceived to operate entirely impartially and not as activists—an accusation thrown at some immigration judges. The recent disquiet about lenient sentences for two teenage rapists, now reversed by the Lady Chief Justice, has highlighted problems with sentencing that ever more rigorous guidelines were supposed to have eliminated.

There is no evidence that our laws lack authority, but there is plenty that they are inadequately enforced. The public want blatant lawbreaking rigorously punished, otherwise anarchy will grow, as more people see less reason to conform. I understand entirely how difficult correcting this will be. Though financially overstretched, Britain needs more police, more prisons and a swifter criminal justice system, with more courts and more judges. Given the need to increase our defence budget, this accentuates the urgency of cutting the welfare bill to realistic levels so that that money can be found.

In my lifetime, confidence in the police has declined gravely. Stories of disgraced officers feature in our media depressingly often, whether extreme cases, such as that of the appalling Wayne Couzens, or the Walter Mitty chief constable who lied about serving in the Falklands. But there are other damaging perceptions. Something is wrong with priorities when precious resources are, for example, wasted sending police to caution people for being rude on social media, as happened just a week ago to a man in Chiswick, or when police are perceived as missing in action, as shown in footage broadcast last weekend of thugs fighting in broad daylight in the streets of once-sedate Bournemouth, with a drug deal being done openly in public there. Equally, as has been mentioned, people wonder why shops whose main function appears to be money laundering are allowed to proliferate in our high streets.

Our present Home Secretary seems a woman of ability and resolve. However, we plainly have some amoebic senior police officers, into whom she should urgently put some backbone. In that context, I was delighted to read the report on police leadership by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which I hope we shall have a chance to debate at length.

As we have heard, the Constitution Committee’s report mentions political rhetoric and social media criticising the judiciary. Free expression is implicit in a free society, however much some may dislike it. None of us is perfect, and, as the occasional revision of lenient sentences shows, this includes judges. But I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, that personal vilification is entirely unacceptable. The Lady Chief and the MoJ should reflect upon why judges are criticised and how better to obviate such criticism.

Lawlessness is deeply demoralising. It is also increasingly dangerous. A fundamental message should go out from this debate that the rule of law will fall into contempt if police will not or cannot make it their priority to enforce existing laws, and if courts cannot rapidly and effectively process the criminals they catch—and, if guilty, punish them in a fashion that protects and remoralises the public.