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

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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 justice and defendants should not wait years for their cases to be heard. Surely constitutional rights should not be treated as administrative burdens. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave your Lordships an insight into the potential power of AI and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, flagged digital technology to reduce waiting lists. Is this something the Government are working on?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, referenced the constitution which has served us so well for three centuries. The right to trial by jury has outlived centuries precisely because it represents a profoundly important foundation stone; namely, that justice is not administered solely by the state but with the participation of the public themselves. It is one of the principal safeguards against the concentration of state power. Yet the Government now propose to remove that safeguard for significant categories of criminal offences, not because the constitutional principle has changed but because a number of Ministers—purportedly not all—regard it as more efficient to do so. Efficiency is indeed a legitimate and worthy objective of government, but efficiency has never been the highest constitutional principle. If it were, many of our liberties would long ago have disappeared. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, were correct when they said that the system is not broken. The UK is a brilliant country, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, advised, a health check on the judiciary is a most sensible proposal.

The committee also reminds us that the rule of law requires legal consistency and coherence. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, rightly proposed that people must have confidence that power is being exercised fairly and equally and there must be a widespread culture of respect for the law. Citizens should be able to understand what the law requires and why Parliament has legislated as it has. Citizens are entitled to expect that one Act of Parliament will not contradict another enacted only weeks before. Yet too often the perception is that the Government’s legislation appears to have been drafted in departmental silos rather than according to any co-ordinated approach to criminal justice or constitutional government.

When justifying the stripping back of the right to jury, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants were “gaming the system” by electing for Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences. The Minister for Courts publicly asked, “Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini-mart should receive the right to trial by jury?” But in the Crime and Policing Act, the Government included a section specifically to designate low-value shoplifting as a triable “either way” offence; in other words, there is a right to jury trial. If the Minister could clarify the Government’s position, many noble Lords would be grateful.

If the Minister for Courts believes that shoplifting offences are examples of minor offences for which jury trial should be removed, but just months later another Minister believes that low-level shoplifting offences are sufficiently serious to justify expansion into “either way” territory, it is understandably challenging to reconcile the Government’s position. Some would suggest that this is a Government legislating without a coherent direction on criminal justice and is a suboptimal way to uphold the rule of law.

If the courts modernisation Bill demonstrates one threat to the rule of law, the Government’s sentencing reforms illustrate another. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded us that perpetrators are rarely held to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned disrespect for the law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, ended his contribution by flagging that the system is undermined if rights are not enforced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, talked about widespread public disillusion; laws must be actioned and evenly applied. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, highlighted a shop being robbed and nothing happening. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, summarised it with a laser focus when he flagged that it is alarming that the law, once unquestioned, is now fragile. There is an epidemic of shoplifting and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the posse of non-law-abiding cyclists all over the country.

Without wishing to state the obvious, laws that are not enforced or whose consequences become increasingly remote inevitably lose their deterrent effect. The Government’s new presumption against short custodial sentences rests on the proposition that imprisonment should become an exceptional rather than ordinary response to a significant range of offending. This means that some shoplifters who now have the right to a trial by jury will waste time and resources in the Crown Court, only to be given a suspended sentence and face no prison time—surely we should ask: does this make sense?

The committee rightly reminds us that the rule of law depends not only on citizens obeying the law voluntarily but on public confidence that the law will be upheld fairly and consistently. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, and nor can legal obligations exist without meaningful consequences. The rule of law must be respected and non-compliance must carry a real expectation of sanction.

Public confidence is further eroded when, on those occasions when offenders do receive custodial sentences, prisoners who should be behind bars are mistakenly released. The public are entitled to expect that criminal justice is administered fairly but also competently. Under this Government, releases in error have more than doubled. At the end of last year, a convicted sex offender was released by mistake. The Lord Chancellor expressed considerable remorse at the individual’s release, promising to remove him from the streets as soon as possible, yet under this Government’s new sentencing reforms, those convicted of such a crime will not go to prison in the first instance. This raises serious questions. Is it a coincidence that the previous Safeguarding Minister resigned and has publicly called for exemptions to the Government’s indiscriminate early release proposals? Indeed, the Prime Minister in waiting has quite rightly expressed apprehension at the prospect of sex offenders being released early this autumn. It should be no surprise that, in the other place on Tuesday, the Motion from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regarding early release was carried through unopposed and, in fact, supported by a number of Government Back-Benchers.

Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referenced Shakespeare in 1584. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, talked about American independence in 1776. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, referenced William Pitt in 1801. If I may, I will finish by referencing Edmund Burke, a renowned political thinker from the 1700s, who observed that society is a partnership not merely between the living but between those who are dead, those who are living and those yet to be born. This country’s constitutional arrangements are part of that inheritance. They have evolved over multiple centuries because they reflect lived experience and deep wisdom concerning the relative balance between liberty and authority. That balance is never maintained by accident. It is because the rule of law guards against both tyranny and anarchy that it remains one of the defining principles of our constitution. That is why respect for the rule of law is critical and must be adhered to, as has been so well put by many noble Lords today.