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

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

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 attention spans and often do not bother to interrogate the credentials of those posting claims online. We are generating a gullible society; the long-term implications are horrendous.

I argued then that the response needed to be not only reactive, countering disinformation, but proactive, ensuring that we have a population that understands and appreciates the value of our system of government—not just the way it operates but the values that underpin it.

As the report argues, we need to ensure that all those who are engaged in upholding the rule of law—the courts, the police, Parliament and other public bodies—do so and are seen to do so. We need to address both the resources, not least the physical resources, and the personnel, ensuring that those who are engaged in public life are appropriately trained, fully understand their task and are well led.

In terms of policing, I very much welcome the report of the Police Leadership Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Herbert and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. We need to ensure that the courts and Parliament do their job effectively and that each understands and respects the position of the other. The relationship should be one of democratic dialogue, not one of competing authority.

However, the key point I wish to make this afternoon is that these changes, while necessary, are by no means sufficient. Here, I follow the comments of my noble friend Lady Laing. The report concludes by stressing the need for public legal education. That needs putting within the broader remit of citizenship education. Ensuring that citizenship education is embedded in our education system is crucial for the well-being of the British polity. As I said in the debate on disinformation, we are in reactive mode in dealing with disinformation by malign agencies, but we must be proactive in ensuring that we have an informed population, understanding not just how the system works but why it matters to everyone. Citizenship education is an essential tool in restoring public trust in our institutions. That trust is undermined by how some public servants behave, but also by ignorance and a willingness to believe false claims spread through social media.

I welcome what the Government have announced about citizenship provision for 2028, and I welcome the resources provided by Oak National Academy, but the key point is ensuring not just that those resources are available but that schools have the ability—and the incentive—to teach it effectively. It needs to be taught by trained citizenship teachers, not teachers drafted in from other subjects. It needs to contribute to league tables. No school should be rated as outstanding or good unless it is delivering citizenship to the highest standard.

Citizenship education needs to extend beyond schools. It needs embedding in the wider society. We should be ensuring that what is in this excellent report, or at least a summary, reaches far and wide, to civic bodies and basically any organisation that draws people together. It should be required reading for anyone applying for citizenship. More challengingly, we must reach those who do not usually engage in civic activities. In many respects, those are the people we most need to reach.

This report deserves more than simply being debated in this House and then left to gather dust. We need to take it as a manifesto for action. The Government need to act on it. We have the government response to the report, which is welcome, containing as it does a series of actions to address the first problem I mentioned, though not addressing it holistically, and addressing the second, not quite as an afterthought, but in four short paragraphs at the end. The key issue is to recognise the sheer importance of problems to the health of our political system. There needs to be more joined-up thinking from the top, treating the issue for what it is: a national crisis.