Lord Speaker's Corner: Lord Norton of Louth

‘In the House of Commons there's a culture of assertion. Government knows it'll normally get its way. In the House of Lords, it's a culture of justification. So government's got to persuade the rest of the House that what it wants to achieve it is desirable. So ministers have to engage. They can't simply rely on their own side to get a measure through.’

In this episode, the Lord Speaker asks constitutional expert and Professor of Government at the University of Hull, Lord Norton of Louth, about the importance of good lawmaking, why everyone should care about secondary legislation and the complementary roles of the House of Lords and House of Commons.

• Listen online
• Apple podcasts
• Spotify
• See a full list of podcast platforms

Watch a video, including subtitles, from the interview, or read on for a transcript.

Transcript

Lord Speaker:   
Lord Norton, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to have this chat with you. You've made a huge contribution in the House of Lords, but tell me, who are you outwith the House of Lords?

Lord Norton:     
Well, outwith the Lords. To some extent, I'm also what I am in the Lords, because I see myself as essentially an educator. That's my vocation. I'm an academic, I've always been interested in politics, but my role is to disseminate knowledge about politics; to study it, to analyse, to research, and then to disseminate my findings. So I see myself, whether I'm in the Lords, whether I'm in university as an academic, as educating.

So that is my core role and what I'm educating people about is Parliament within our political system. So I've always been fascinated by politics since I was extraordinarily young. So I've pursued an interest in politics. I then studied it and then stayed in the academic world. So did my first degree in this country, did a master's degree in the States, did my PhD on parliamentary voting behavior, and stayed in academic life and particularly my whole permanent academic career's been at the University of Hull.

The university very kindly promoted me quite quickly. I got my chair at a young age and I just stayed there and got on with that research that has always engaged me, fascinated me, and so deriving from that I've published a lot, I go out, do lots of talks, but I see myself as I say, as there to inform people about, and help people understand, the role of Parliament in our political system, and more broadly understand our political system.

So even when I joined the Lords, I didn't see my role necessarily as a partisan figure to pursue a particular line. But again, it was to contribute to debate through drawing on my own work, my own research. So my work in Parliament has enriched my research. So the work here feeds back into what I'm doing in the way that my research then feeds into my work in the House.

Lord Speaker:   
So that empirical understanding of Parliament that's helped you in your professional role as a professor of politics. How has that impinged in young people that you've been engaged with? Because I was a member of the House of Commons for many years and your name came up early to me regarding bringing students in and I've had a whole number of students assisting me over the years and it's been hugely helpful. So tell us about that.

Lord Norton:     
Well, I've been researching Parliament my whole academic career, so well over 40 years and for well over 30 years of that, it's not just teaching students, it's getting them involved in the parliamentary process by running a degree that intrinsic to it is placements at Westminster. So students come down for, it's a four-year degree, they spend their third year on placement at Westminster, since supplemented that as well by a further placement scheme for those of our students doing three year honours degrees who can come down for one semester on placement as well. So that enables students not only to study but to immerse themselves to really understand the institution from within. They can gain a great understanding through academic study, but it's not quite complete. As they all say, "Once you've been here, you've worked here," you've got a much better understanding of the nuances of the system, how it works.

And so that enriches their knowledge and enables them to go out into the world afterwards because of the skills they acquire, the understanding they acquire, and to some extent the enthusiasm they gain, or they already have, for or parliamentary system, how it works, getting engaged in it in all sorts of ways.

So they go on to service parliamentary affairs officers for leading firms, particularly our leading charities. Some will go to work in the media, some will come back to work at Westminster, some will stand for elected office. Mostly, they prefer working for elected politicians rather than being elected politicians. So they gain a lot from it, enriches their experience, but then they go on to do things which draws on their experience here, enables them to do the sort of jobs that they do.

Lord Speaker:   
I'm interested in their feedback to you after they've been in Westminster. At one stage in my life- I did an MBA part-time when I was serving as a teacher and I was asked what the course did for me over the three-year period of study and I said actually I think it transformed my view from black and white to gray in a number of areas. Understanding the complexity of issues in society. Is some of that feedback you've had from your students along the same lines?

Lord Norton:     
In part, I mean the thing that they gain from it, I think being on placement, working here, engaging with politicians is how the system works, is partly they acquire skills which are very useful when they go on to take up employment in terms of interpersonal skills, which are so important here, time management, networking.

The biggest development, the biggest contribution is in terms of personal development. It really develops their confidence. Opens up avenues they previously didn't realise existed. So it sort of enthuses them in terms of what they're going on to do. It helps to appreciate the differences, the differences that exist within the political system. But on the whole, it enhances their view of Parliament.I think they come away even more positive than when they arrived.

So they recognise limitations, the problems, some of the difficulties that one faces within the Palace of Westminster. But at the same time, understanding the process, they really, I think warm to it. They understand it and they appreciate the work of parliamentarians. They realise the demands made of them, how demanding it is, and how much work that members of both Houses actually put into doing the job, that they are motivated to do a good job. They're not necessarily there for self-serving purposes.

Lord Speaker:   
Now this will open up a wide area, but do any of them come back to you in and say, ‘Look, we've been in Parliament, we've seen the House of Lords who operates. It's unelected. We should get rid of it tomorrow, Lord Norton.’

Lord Norton:     
No, no. Quite the opposite. If they come down here, they become quite positive about the whole parliamentary system. But particularly the Lords, we get some students are very keen to work on the Lord's side and very supportive. But students generally recognising the value of the House. So, when back in 2012 the government brought forward its House of Lords reform bill, the students on placement were, let's just say, they were not enamored by the bill and they formed their own... Got together to argue against it using social media, of course, at which they were very adept and really did a good job and really extremely enthusiastic. So they tend to recognise the value added by the second chamber. So some of them bring great advocates of the Lords. Haven't come across many who have had a negative attitude and certainly hardly any who argue for abolition

Lord Speaker:   
What benefit does the House of Lords bring to the political environment and indeed to society? Does it bring any benefit?

Lord Norton:     
Yes, I think the House of Lords adds value to our political system and in many respects we're extremely fortunate because of its complimentary role. I mean, we're unusual, not in having an appointed second chamber because quite a number of nations do. We're unusual in actually having a second chamber, because most nations have a unicameral system. So we have to justify having a second chamber. And I think we do because ours complements the role of the first. So it doesn't duplicate it, it doesn't challenge it.

So the Commons gets on and fulfills its role which derives from the fact it comprises members who are elected. They're there for a particular purpose, they have electoral legitimacy, they have a purely, well primarily a clear political role, which is why they're there. Now, the Lords adds value by fulfilling tasks that the House of Commons either doesn't have the time to or doesn't have the political will. To some extent the two come together on say, let's take delegated legislation.

Very important nowadays growing volume of delegated legislation, having a major...

Lord Speaker:   
Can you explain delegated legislation?

Lord Norton:     
Yes, because we have Acts of Parliament that go through, and nowadays increasingly will confer powers on ministers to deal with the details. So order making powers, so an Act will often include a provision saying a minister may, by order, do X and Y because you can't always put the detail in an Act. You need some degree of flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. So a minister will make an order in the form of a statutory instrument. So secondary legislation. So in other words, powers that are delegated by the original Act to ministers. But that work, the orders that are generated, need scrutinising. So do they comply? Are they deficient? What are they seeking to achieve?

And it's the volume has just expanded enormously in recent decades. So you need to check it, you need to scrutinise. Well, from an MP's point of view, there's not a great deal of political mileage in looking at the detail of secondary legislation. So the Lords engages in detailed scrutiny, has committees for doing it. So we have a Delegated Powers Committee that will examine a bill and see, well, what order making powers are included in it, what are the means for parliamentary scrutiny when the orders are made?

So if you like the input side, we then have a second, another committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. If you like the output side, in other words once orders are actually made, then scrutinising them, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee each week will have a mass of orders to scrutinize, detailed work going through it. I served on it for a while.

One of the other members was a former Law Lord, very good at really detailed scrutiny reading every instrument, more or less word-for-word. Now MPs are extraordinarily busy. The demands made on their time means they wouldn't be able to prioritise that type of activity. It doesn't sort of fit with the demands of an MP, which are to be fairly profile-raising if you like. They need to engage in activities that I tend to call, ‘look-at-me activities.’

So service on a select committee, particularly a popular one, foreign affairs, home affairs, or raising questions at PMQs. But the sort of activity of this profile-raising, which they do necessarily because they're elected and they want to be reelected. But the demands on their time is such, they've got to prioritise. Scrutinising delegated legislation isn't a priority, so it comes to the Lord. So the Lords if you like, does the heavy lifting that otherwise would not be done at all.

Lord Speaker:   
In explaining that to some people outside, you maybe get the retort, "What does it matter? Why does it matter this... It's not changing our lives at all."

Lord Norton:     
Ah - well, mainly because it is changing their lives, because law affects everybody. That's what Parliament is here for. Government will bring it forward. The proposals, primarily it's government legislation that the two houses deal with, but it requires the ascent of Parliament to be law. Once it's law, that shapes people's lives, because it tells them particularly what they can't do as well as occasionally empowering them to do things.

So everyone's life is shaped by law. When you go out in any daily business, you're affected by the law of the land. And of course the detail, even when you're out driving some of the detail about what you can and cannot do, may be affected by secondary legislation, not just the primary act, but then orders made by ministers. So that is so important to the citizen.

Lord Speaker:   
And orders made by ministers sometimes called Henry VIII powers, they override the Act by virtue of the pen of a minister. Is that correct?

Lord Norton:     
That's what the Henry VIII power means, yes. That a minister is given powers to change primary legislation. And that is worrying because normally primary legislation should be changed by primary legislation. So the Lords particularly is very alert to that to check, are there Henry VIII provisions in legislation to try and prevent that.

Lord Speaker:   
So if you could sum up what the House of Lords in terms of the law, it pursues good law. And what does good law produce?

Lord Norton:     
Well, I think good law is law that affects people in the way it's designed to. It's appropriate. You can end up with bad law, which is measures that have unintended consequences or negative consequences. So with past legislation, which is designed to achieve particular aims.

Now part of the problem has been that ministers are keen to get bills through, they introduce their measures and, success has been gauged by have you got your bill through, has it been enacted, rather than has it had the desired effect? And that's really what it should be measured by. Is the law achieving what it was intended to? So again, the Lords has a role here because each session now appointing a committee for post legislative scrutiny and that's something that plays to the strengths of that.

Lord Speaker:   
Which the Commons doesn't do much.

Lord Norton:     
It does sporadically, but it's up to the departmental select committees where they undertake it. And they are heavily overwhelmed really with all the things that are placed on them. So they don't have much time. And if they do, it's going to be a fairly high-profile act that they review.

And the Lord says the degree of consistency, and I say it plays to the strengths of the House in reviewing law that's been passed. But having a look at well, has it actually achieved what it was intended to achieve and if not, can something be done about it? And I think that's an area where we could do far more. But it's an illustration of the type of work that the Lords can do.

Lord Speaker:   
Some would say that the House of Lords is just interfering here and we should just let the House of Commons get on with its business. But you mentioned the issue of a complementary approach there. So in other words, not doing what the House of Commons is doing but also the challenge that we let the House of Commons get its business. How would you answer someone positively on that? That this isn't just interference.

Lord Norton:     
Oh, it's not interference at all. It's rather helping the Commons because of the demands on members' time now and on the timetable. It's extraordinarily difficult to find the time to fully scrutinise bills as they're going through. And there's a political dimension to it as well, because when a bill goes into committee and be programmed.

The focus will be be on those amendments the opposition wants to be discussed, to raise the issues they think are important, rather than if you like, the actual detail of the measure and going through it consistently, which the Lords does. So adds value because it allows the Commons to do that which it wishes to do, which is essentially a political role.

The Lord's role is very different, which is detailed scrutiny of the provisions and making sure all parts of the bill are considered. So we can do that, partly because of our composition, partly of our procedures, both of which are different to those of the Commons, but in a way that is complementary. So it's not conflicting, it's rather helping the Commons by doing those tasks which if it tried to take on would mean the Commons would be overburdened.

Lord Speaker:   
Yeah. There possibly is a view that opposition, whether it be official opposition, crossbenchers, whatever, defeating government. That's the exercise here, but it's much more involved in that, isn't it, in terms of amendments coming to the floor of the House and been agreed by government at the end of the day.

Lord Norton:     
Yes.

Lord Speaker:   
Give us an insight into that.

Lord Norton:     
Well, I think that's the important point that a lot of it is consensual. Most amendments are passed without a vote, so the ones that are carried by a vote or defeated by a vote, very much the minority, and people misunderstand it as if, ‘Oh we're defeating the government’ as if that's the end of it. But by defeating it on a particular amendment, what you are doing is inviting the Commons to think again if they do and persist, the Lords tends to give way to that. So I think it's important to understand what's happening it's not sticking its heels in and saying, ‘No, that's it.’ It's saying ‘Well, this is our way of inviting the Commons to look at this again. We think this is better than what the government's put in.’ But it's up to the Commons if it insists we don't persist. So I think that's a crucial point.

             
But most amendments are consensual. One of the points I’ve often explained to people about the legislation of process in the Lords is the most important stage is not one of the formal ones, at committee or report, it's the informal stage between committee and report. So members will table amendments at committee stage. Government may say, ‘Well, there may be a point there but not well-drafted or we'll think about it if you withdraw it.’

Member withdraws it, then the minister with his or her officials sees the peer to discuss it to see whether the government could draft an amendment that meets the point that's been raised because the minister sees the argument. And so  atreport stage we get lots of amendments which actually are government amendments but originate from points raised by peers earlier.

So it's that sort of discourse which actually helps improve the bill. So that's the more important part of the process than the more high-profile if there's been a government defeat.

Lord Speaker:   
Would you refer to that as a civil discourse? Because members are contributing from their expertise, their experience outwith here.

Lord Norton:     
Oh absolutely. I remember when the House of Lords Reform Bill was being discussed by the Joint Committee. I served on it and Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi at the time, put in evidence and he drew attention to the value of the House, almost its unique role as facilitating a discourse of civil society. You wouldn't get that anywhere else. So now that's invaluable in terms of who it draws together, the different backgrounds from which they come, the different bodies to really ensure there's informed debate in a consensual way that really enhances the quality of the legislation.

Lord Speaker:   
So would you sum it up saying that the House of Commons, as a representative body, is the body which gets its will, gets its way, and members are accountable to their constituents. Whereas in the House of Lords, we do not have constituents, but we're accountable to society.

Lord Norton:     
And accountable through the Commons, for that matter, because it's up to the Commons whether to accept what we put forward. We can't do anything on our own. It's up to persuading the Commons to go along with us. So the Commons can get the end it wants. We can't without the support of the Commons. And the difference between the two I characterise usually is the Commons determines the ends of legislation. So it determines the principle. This is what we want to achieve. The Lords doesn't challenge that. So hence we don't vote on second reading of government bills if they're in the manifesto. And in practice, we don't generally vote on any government bill on second reading.

So we don't challenge the principle. We debate it, we don't challenge it. So the Commons determines the ends of legislation. The House of Lords' focus is on the means. So how can the measure be improved? Is it fine as it stands, could bits of it be redrafted, bits added that actually enhances the measure. So that's our role. We are not challenging fundamentally the Commons, which is entitled to get its way.

Lord Speaker:   
So the Commons is assertive, but the Lords seeks justification for the measures.

Lord Norton:     
Yes, and it compliments it because of the way we operate, which is very different. And as you've touched on, there's a very different culture in the two houses. In the House of Commons as a culture of assertion. Government knows it'll normally get its way. In the House of Lords, it's a culture of justification. So government's got to persuade the rest of the House that what it wants to achieve is desirable. So ministers have to engage. They can't simply rely on their own side to get a measure through.

And I think that's extremely valuable, because in the Commons, you have two sides facing one another. They see one another as the other side, their opponents. And that shapes debate, it is one side versus the other. I think in the Lords, it's not one side versus  the other. It's debate that focuses on the minister, to influence the minister and the government's stance on that particular measure.

Lord Speaker:   
Now you've always been interested in reform of the House of Lords. Why is reform so important? And only very recently, you had a private member's bill looking at the House of Lords Appointments Committee and others. Tell us about that and why the need for reform.

Lord Norton:     
Well, I think there's a need for change to strengthen the institution. I always follow Edmund Burke, who argued a state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation. So you look at how you work, can it be improved? So the value we add could be strengthened by making some adjustments to how we operate.

Some of those, some changes can be achieved within the House itself as you know, because you were largely responsible for reforming the committee system in the House, and that's really been valuable to the work it does. Other changes require legislation to affect the powers of the House, to affect the composition in a way that enables it to fulfill its function, and to enhance its public reputation. Because there has to be trust in the institution if it's to do its job effectively.

So we have a challenge there, not least because people don't understand the Lords, and because some of our processes or the means by which members are appointed to the House do deserve to be reformed.

Lord Speaker:   
So can you sum up for me then your outside interests, your contribution here and how that adds value to the political process?

Lord Norton:     
Well insofar, as I make a contribution, that's for others to really determined but it's my research interests, my background, my study is of the constitution and Parliament within that. So that's what I sort of bring to bear to the institution, to identify ways in which Parliament itself could be strengthened, building on its existing performance, existing procedures, in order to enable it to do better that which it does well, but certainly in the case of the Lords we could build on that to be more efficient, perhaps more effective, in complementing the work of the first chamber.

So my role is part internal in trying to persuade members how to achieve that. And more broadly, my role as an educator is partly educating members, but educating people outside about the role of Parliament, and within that, the role of the Lords. People quite often don't fully understand Parliament. They quite often confuse it with government within Parliament, the bit they least understand is the role of the House of Lords.

So when people do know about it, they tend to be quite supportive. If one looks at the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on House of Law reform back in 2000, those who knew most about the Lords were most supportive of it, wanting to maintain it largely in its current form with some changes. It's the people who know least about it tend to be the ones who are most critical of it. But in order for people to make a decision, they really need to have some knowledge of it, rather than speaking from a position of ignorance. So my role I see is to go out there and explain what is the role of the Lords, how does it operate, it’s up for people to reach their own conclusions.

But I'm keen to ensure they do it from an informed basis. And so it's partly talking to wider audiences through different media and also through lots of visits to schools, not least through the Learn with the Lords program that we have here, but also independent of that because I am getting invited to quite a number of schools to go and talk about the role of Parliament. So I think that's extremely important.

More broadly, we need reform to ensure that citizenship education is an important part of what schools are doing. It's in the curriculum, but there's no great incentive at the moment for schools to take it seriously. Doesn't contribute to league tables and things like that. So I think we need to be banging the drum, making the case for the resources to be given to schools to actually teach citizenship education. So at least that young people will be informed about our political system and why it's important to them.

I say they can make up their own minds, but educating them about it I think is absolutely crucial. And they benefit from understanding their own system, how it operates, but also what they can contribute to it.

Lord Speaker:   
Lord Norton, it's not all doom and gloom. Let's lighten it up. Give us your best memories.

Lord Norton:     
Oh, how long have you got, I think is the response there. Because the great thing about the Lords is because of who sits in it, you get some really fascinating, informed debates. And I'll be in the chamber, perhaps not intended, be there that long because it's not subject I know about, but I start listening and realise, well these are the experts who are in awe of them because what they know. And I end up sitting there for ages because it's so educative listening to them. So there've been some fantastic speeches.

I mean, there've been some lighter moments because some pairs can be quite humorous, some can be quite long. But fortunately, we tend to time limit speeches, which again, I think it's a great benefit because you hear a series of short contributions from people who know what they're talking about. It's really engaging. And then we do have some members as you know, who perhaps get to their feet quite frequently. There are some moments that of course are captured on camera and gone viral. You remember we had a late Baroness now, Baroness Trumpington, who was quite a character.

Lord Speaker:   
Yes I do. I was there at the time.

Lord Norton:     
Yeah, served in Bletchley during the Second World War.

Lord Speaker:   
Not Bletchley, by the way, in the House of Lords. [Laughter]

Lord Norton:     
Oh yes. Quite. But she was quite a character and could put herself forward. And of course famously, when Tom King was stood beside her talking about, ‘well some of us perhaps were a bit past it like Baroness Trumpington’, and she gave him a two-fingered salute and that went viral.

Lord Speaker:   
The Churchill salute in reverse?

Lord Norton:     
Yes. Oh very much so. As someone said to me the next day, "Do you think Baroness Trumpington realises she's gone viral?" So you get some really good moments at the dispatch box. I remember when one minister, many years ago, we were discussing the use of mobile phones on airplanes, because whether it interfered and things like that. And the minister at the time was responding and someone, I remember it was coming towards the end, so someone just said, ‘Well, nevermind about phones on planes. What about on terra firma?’

And there was a delay before Lord Whitty, he got to despatch box to respond because he obviously hadn't heard what was said. So eventually when he came to the despatch box and realised, whoops, there's been a delay, I'd better explain it. He said, ‘I'm sorry, my Lords, I thought terra firma might be some obscure airline.’

So they're very good at me gaining the mood of the house and things like that. And again, it's another Baroness Trumpington story. I remember once many years ago, it's when Lord Williams was a minister and was asked some question about mistreatment of, I think it was apes that had to be taken off some, perhaps a circus, and that it began a bit of a story. So there'd been a question about it, and Lord Williams I think was replying slightly tongue-in-cheek and said, ‘Well yes, we've had these,’ I think it was apes anyway, said ‘the lead ape, Mary, she'd been taken away.

She's now with a troop of apes and my Lords, she seems to be with, she's in with another ape called Edward and they seem to be getting on rather well together.’ Before anybody could do anything. Baroness Trumpington shot to her feet and declared, "My Lords, she's better off than I am" and sat down. Well, I felt sorry for the minister because technically that was something he had to respond to. So yeah. And so you get moments like that which just lighten the mood. And some ministers are very good at that sort of response.

But more seriously, some ministers are very good at engaging with the House, really know their subject, on top of their briefs, and really impressive, because another value of the House of Lords of course is with question time, you've several minutes - now ten minutes per question. So opportunity for several peers to come in, really pursue a minister, unlike in the Commons. So a minister's really got to know their stuff to be able to deal with it. And you can always tell the ministers that are really on top of the subject and really engage with members and those who can't. And sometimes the minister clearly isn't up to it and sometimes not that long after they cease to be ministers.

Lord Speaker:   
Well, you mentioned that some members are too long with their speeches. Could I say that this isn't long enough? Lord Norton, it's been a fantastic exchange for me in understanding and your contribution not only to the work of the House, but to proclaiming the work of the House outside and ensuring that young people understand the House. That's the very essence, I think, of good politics. So can I thank you for your time?

Lord Norton:     
My pleasure. It's a real pleasure.

Lord Speaker:   
Thank you.