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.
Well, outwith the Lords,
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,
and so I've pursued
an interest in politics.
I then studied it
and then stayed in the academic world
as I 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
has been at the University of Hull.
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
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's
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.
What benefit does
the House of Lords
bring to
the political environment
and indeed to society.
Does it bring any benefit?
Yes, I think the House of Lords
adds value to our political system
and in many respects
we are extremely fortunate
because of its complementary 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
that they're for a particular purpose.
They have electoral legitimacy.
They have a purely or primarily a clear
political role,
which is why they're there.
The Lords adds value by fulfilling tasks
that the House of Commons
either doesn't have the time
or doesn't have the political will
so that the two come together
on say, let's say, delegated legislation.
Very important nowadays,
growing volume of delegated legislation
having a major impact.
Can you explain delegated legislation?
Yes, because we have Acts of Parliament
that goes 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
and 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 the volume has just expanded
enormously in recent decades.
So you need to check it.
You need scrutinise.
Well,
from an MPs 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
another committee,
the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee,
if you like, the output side.
In other words,
when orders are actually made,
then scrutinising them
and the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee each week
will have a mass of orders to scrutinise
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 is 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 in Foreign
Affairs, Home Affairs,
or raising questions at PMQs.
But the sort of activity
that's 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 Lords, so the Lords,
if you like, does the heavy lifting
that otherwise would not be done at all.
And explaining
that to some people outside,
you'd maybe get the retort,
'what does it matter?
Why does it matter this?
There's
no change in our lives at all?'
Well, mainly
because it is changing their lives
because law affects everybody.
That's what Parliament is here for.
Government will bring 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.
So if you could sum up
what the House of Lords does
in terms of the law, it pursues good law.
And what does good law produce?
Well, I think
a 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 we pass 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.
So let's -
and that's something that plays
to the strengths of the House.
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.
It's rather helping
the Commons because of the demands
on members'
time now and on the timetable,
it's extraordinary 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 the bill
goes into committee,
It'll be programmed
but the focus
will 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 it
adds value
because it allows the Commons to do that
which it wishes to do,
which is essentially a political role.
The Lords 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 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.
That's the important point that it is,
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 that very much
the minority and people misunderstand
it as defeating the government
as if that's that's the end of it.
But by defeating it on a particular
amendment, what you're 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, you know,
'that's it'
It's saying, 'well, this is our way of
inviting the Commons
to look at this again and
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 often
explained to people
about the legislative
process in the Lords
is the most important stage
is not one of the formal ones
of 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 they're 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 at report stage,
we get lots of amendments
which are actually government amendments.
But originate from points
raised by peers earlier.
So the Commons determines
the ends of legislation.
The House of Lords focuses on the means.
So how can the measure be improved
as it finds it stands?
Could it be,
bits of it be redrafted, bits added that
actually enhances the measure?
So that's our role
in the House of Commons
there's a culture of assertion.
Government knows
it will normally be able to 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, they are opponents.
And that shapes debate.
It's 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.
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?
Well, I think there's a need for change
to strengthen the institution.
I mean, 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
changes can be achieved
within the House itself.
As you know,
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
that 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 a job effectively.
Lord Naughton,
it's not all doom and gloom.
Let's lighten it up, you know?
Give us your best memories.
Oh, how long have you got?
I think is the response there.
And because the great thing
about the Lords is because of
who sits in it,
you get some really fascinating,
informed debates and
and I'll be in the chamber,
perhaps not intend to be there
that long
because it's not a subject
I know about,
but I start listening and realise,
well, these are the experts,
you are in awe of them
because of what they know
and I end up sitting there for ages
because it's so educative
listening to them.
So there's been some fantastic speeches.
I mean, there have been some lighter moments
because some peers
can be quite humorous,
and some can be quite long,
but fortunately
we tend to time limit speeches.
So 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.
And there are some
moments that, of course,
are captured on camera and gone viral.
You remember.
We had a late Baroness,
Baroness Trumpington,
who was quite a character, fearsome who
could put herself forward.
And of course, famously
when Tom King was stood
beside her
talking about, 'well, some of us
perhaps are a bit past it,
like Baroness Trumpington',
and she gave him a two fingered salute
and that went viral.
The Churchill salute in reverse. Yes.
Oh, very much so.
And so as someone said to me
the next day,
'do you think Baroness Trumpington
realised she's gone viral?'
And then 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, 10 minutes per question.
So opportunity for several peers
to come in
really pursue a minister,
unlike in the Commons.
So a minister has
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.
Well, you mentioned that
some members are too long.
with their speeches. Can I say
that this isn't long enough?
Lord Norton,
it's been a fantastic exchange
for me in understanding
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 on that.
It's a real pleasure.
Thank you.