Rule of law: Lords Constitution Committee report

Approximate read time: 12 minutes

On 9 July 2026, the House of Lords is scheduled to debate the House of Lords Constitution Committee report ‘The rule of law: Holding the line against tyranny and anarchy’ (20 November 2025, HL Paper 211 of session 2024–26).

1. The rule of law

The rule of law is not defined in statute.^[1] However, its central tenets are widely recognised and date back several centuries.

In the House of Lords Constitution Committee report ‘The rule of law: Holding the line against tyranny and anarchy’ (20 November 2025), the committee referred to a centuries-long recognition that a rules-based society was necessary to prevent tyranny and anarchy and to preserve our freedoms.^[2] The committee stated the rule of law was one of the core principles underpinning democracy and culture in the UK. The committee described the rule of law as being best understood as a culture in which everyone:^[3]

• acts within the law and can rely on other people, including those in positions of power, to do the same, and, if not, to be held to account
• is treated fairly before the law
• has the benefit of independent judges who resolve disputes and decide questions of law without bias or external influence
• can find out what the law is and how it applies to them
• can access a fair system in which they can obtain justice, resolve disputes and protect their rights

However, various stakeholders have raised concerns about compliance with the rule of law in the UK and abroad in recent times.^[4] According to the annual assessment of adherence to the rule of law carried out by international civil society organisation the World Justice Project (WJP), there has been continued global deterioration in the rule of law.^[5] The WJP said more than half of the 142 countries assessed as part of its 2024 rule of law index had experienced declines in the relevant year.

2. Committee inquiry into the rule of law

The committee’s report ‘The rule of law: Holding the line against tyranny and anarchy’ (20 November 2025) set out findings from its inquiry launched in March 2025 amid concerns about an apparent decline in respect for the rule of law globally and domestically.^[6] The committee explored different understandings of the rule of law both at home and internationally, as well as its operation in government, Parliament and the judiciary.^[7] The committee’s findings included the following:^[8]

• Fairness and acting within the law: The rule of law depends on a shared belief that fairness and accountability apply equally to everyone, including governments, organisations and individuals. However, the committee said this was being challenged by growing perceptions that some individuals can break the law without consequence. Concerns included declining trust in the police and other institutions responsible for enforcing the law, as well as accusations of bias, discrimination and “two-tier policing”.
• Judicial independence: Public confidence in the judiciary is vital for trust in the fair administration of justice. This requires that judges make decisions independently of bias and external influence, and that they are perceived to do so. However, the committee stated confidence was being increasingly challenged by political rhetoric that criticised the judiciary, and this was being amplified on social media.
• Legal certainty and accessibility: The law must be accessible and clear for the public to understand their obligations. The committee said the law had become so complex as to be “impenetrable to most people”. It attributed this in part to the “sheer volume of legislation, not all of which is needed”, as well as an increased use of delegated legislation which has less parliamentary scrutiny.
• A fair justice system: Justice system delays and the record high backlog of crown court cases meant that people could wait years for their cases to reach court. Legal advice and representation were also unaffordable to many people. Other challenges to the justice system included overwhelmed legal advice services and difficulties with enforcement of court orders. The committee said such challenges were damaging the public’s confidence in the justice system and in their ability to uphold their legal rights.

The committee’s report included a range of recommendations, including key ones highlighted in a press release accompanying the report:^[9]

• Everyone should take personal responsibility to act lawfully and should be held to account if they do break the law. The government must recognise and support the role that policing plays in building and maintaining respect for the rule of law.
• The government must urgently take decisive action to tackle delays in the courts. This should involve consideration of innovative solutions, exploring the adoption of new technologies across the justice process, the role of alternative dispute resolution and increased support of advice services.
• There should also be uniform provision of public legal education in schools to improve public understanding of, and confidence engaging with, the justice system. Necessary resources and expertise should also be made available to better communicate judicial decisions.
• The government and politicians must take stronger action to defend the judiciary against attack and should seek to avoid contributing to unjustified criticism of legal professionals. Ministers must set the tone in demonstrating that questioning the integrity of judges and spreading misinformation about their judgments is unacceptable. This also extends to the police.
• Whilst parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can make any law including those which could damage the rule of law, it must take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and exercise this power with due care, bearing in mind compliance with the state’s international obligations.
• The law itself must be accessible and clear. The government should avoid introducing additional complexity into the statute book unnecessarily, and it should not seek to bypass parliamentary scrutiny through the excessive use of delegated legislation.

3. Government response

The government published its response to the committee’s report in February 2026.^[10] The response set out both the government’s view on the rule of law and its response to the committee’s recommendations.

It stated the prime minister and attorney general had set out the government’s commitment to the rule of law, both within the UK and on the international stage.^[11] Lord Chancellor David Lammy had also sworn on his oath that he would defend the rule of law with “every fibre of his being”. Nonetheless, although the rule of law is embedded in our history, the government said it agreed with the committee’s view that we should not be complacent. The government said it believed that both it and constitutional actors had a duty to maintain the rule of law.

The government also responded to the committee’s recommendations, including in the following areas:

• On the committee’s recommendations for the government to recognise and support the role of policing in maintaining respect for the rule of law, the government said it was committed to restoring public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system.^[12] It said this included working to reduce disparity within the use of stop and search powers and improving data collection, as well as reforming police vetting and misconduct systems.
• On ensuring an effective justice system, the government said it was providing funding for legal support and fee uplifts for various legal aid work to help improve access to legal advice.^[13] The government also stated it was doing various things to help reduce delays in the court system, including digitising processes and integrating AI across courts and tribunals. On ensuring a uniform delivery of teaching about the rule of law in schools in England, the government said it aimed to deliver the first teaching of a new curriculum and assessment system from September 2028, including programmes of study for citizenship. It said proposals would be consulted on in 2026.
• On defending the judiciary when under attack, the government said the lord chancellor and attorney general had all spoken out in defence of the judiciary and would continue to do so.^[14] Whilst there was no issue discussing and debating court judgments and the law underpinning them, it stated this should be distinguished from personal attacks on judges or the judiciary as an institution. The government referred to “baseless accusations” that had called into question the judiciary’s impartiality following reporting of judicial decisions, mainly but not exclusively immigration decisions. It expressed concern this had fostered a view of the judiciary as partisan, biased and politically activist, and had led to public abuse of the judiciary including threats to judges’ safety.
• On ensuring legal certainty and accessibility, the government said it had established processes for ensuring government legislation was clear and accessible.^[15] This included procedures for reviewing draft bills, as well as various published materials such as drafting guidance. On delegated legislation, the government agreed with the committee that delegated powers should be properly framed to ensure they are clear and strike the right balance. It gave examples of circumstances that it said were appropriate for including delegated powers in a bill. This included to allow details to be amended more quickly or frequently than would be possible through primary legislation, such as in areas of rapidly evolving technology.

4. Stakeholder views

Various stakeholders responded to the committee’s inquiry to share their views. This included the Law Society of England and Wales that said its research had shown the public had a narrow understanding of the rule of law: one which does not see the wider collective benefits to society or the relevance to everyday life.^[16] It called for more to be done to help the public actively engage on rule of law issues.

Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill highlighted various actions that had been taken to increase the understanding of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law.^[17] This included briefing papers for MPs on the role of the courts, invitations to MPs to visits courts and tribunals, and outreach programmes to schools and students.

The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law discussed the importance of public legal education for sustaining the rule of law, arguing that teaching should include rule of law education to equip learners for full participation in democratic society.^[18]

The Bar Council—regulator for the bar of England and Wales—said repeated public attacks on the legal profession had undermined domestic and international trust in the justice system and threatened the effective operation of the rule of law.^[19]

President of the UK Supreme Court Lord Reed of Allermuir stated that Parliament, the government and the courts all play a vital role in maintaining the rule of law.^[20] Lord Reed said a threat to the rule of law could arise if there is a lack of mutual trust between these three branches of the state.

Professor Meg Russell, then director of the UCL Constitution Unit, and Lisa James, senior research fellow, focused on the role that parliamentary scrutiny of legislation played in upholding the rule of law. They referred to various suggestions for how the legislative process could be improved to better facilitate the rule of law, including higher standards for bill preparation and stronger scrutiny processes for delegated legislation.^[21]

5. Read more

• House of Lords Constitution Committee, ‘Letter from David Lammy, deputy prime minister and lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice to Lord Strathclyde, chair of the constitution committee, responding to the committee’s report on the rule of law’, 23 February 2026
• House of Lords Library, ‘Rule of law: Principles, challenges and government commitments’, 12 November 2024

---

Image by Sang Hyun Cho on Pixabay.