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.