Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this debate. She raises some important questions. Parliamentary democracy is now under threat, not least as elected Governments seek to tackle problems that often go beyond their borders and with a public who respond to the failure to tackle those problems by embracing the calls of populist politicians. Some democracies, such as the United States, have a history of populist movements—a tendency now writ large—but we see it elsewhere as well, not least in some nations of Europe.

In the United Kingdom, we have largely managed, so far, to resist that trend, and the reason for that rests in the fundamental nature of our parliamentary democracy. Those calling for a codified constitution largely miss the point of what sustains the institutions of the state. Some nations have codified constitutions, but no culture of constitutionalism. By that, I mean an acceptance at mass and elite level of the legitimacy of the constitutional processes. That is what underpins the rule of law. We have a culture of constitutionalism that is so well embedded that it has facilitated our uncodified constitution and has provided stability through the fact that the constitution does not impose an unwieldy straitjacket. We benefit from a culture that has reinforced the value of that system. Some of the basic rules of society are so well ingrained that it is not necessary to enshrine them formally.

That culture still pertains, and it is essential to our well-being as a nation. If we start to move to a more formalised system, we are in danger of creating a society with some degree of rigidity. Problems with maintaining standards in public life have undermined confidence in the system, but that is an argument for recognising and bolstering the core culture, not an argument for eroding it.

Institutions matter, but in terms of public trust, the focus is on those who occupy them. We have seen some officeholders exhibit an egregious disregard of standards in recent years. We need to avoid displacement activity—advancing constitutional reform as if that is the answer—and instead we need to focus on behaviour. We need to embed a culture of responsibility and, instead of blaming our constitution, we need to be reflecting on how we recruit public officials, how we tighten the regulatory framework and how we inculcate a commitment to delivering outputs in the best interests of the nation.

Democracy Denied (DPRRC Report)

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome both excellent reports. My starting point is that good law is a public good, most law emanates from the Executive, and Parliament’s role is to ensure that the legislation that they bring forward is justified and as well drafted as it can be. We need therefore to have in place the means to scrutinise and influence legislation, be it primary or secondary; the need to ensure secondary legislation is scrutinised effectively is well made in the reports before us.

We have the means of scrutiny but we do not follow through in influencing the Executive. That is the problem, and I argue that there are two reasons for it. One is well identified in the reports before us—it is the attitude of the Executive—and the other is to be found in this House. On the first, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee makes abundantly clear, the culture of the Executive is to see the delegation of legislative powers as a matter of political expediency. Ministers and officials have got so used to the convenience of employing delegated legislation that they not only neglect the fundamental principles detailed in the committee’s report but exhibit at times a rather lazy attitude to drafting. It is part and parcel of a wider attitude to Parliament, one borne in part of ignorance of Parliament.

The government response commits to the inclusion in the Guide to Making Legislation of the principles adumbrated in the committee’s report in order

“to remind departments, both ministers and officials and also the PBL Committee, of the constitutional principles underlying the relationship between Parliament and the executive.”

But why do they need reminding of something that should be ingrained as part of their culture? What is in the Government’s response is not so much a concession as an admission of a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. In replying, could my noble friend the Leader of the House explain what other steps are being taken to ensure compliance with this statutory duty?

I turn to the second part of my thesis: namely, that part of the reason lies with this House. The committees produce valuable reports, but they are toothless if the House itself is not prepared to act. There is little point giving a committee the power to bark if the House is not prepared to bite. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said in Tuesday’s Second Reading debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, Parliament’s reluctance to reject SIs makes such power “purely nominal”. When an SI comes before the House, we debate it but then agree to it. A regret Motion may be passed, but that constitutes an expression of opinion—one that, as far as I am aware, is invariably ignored.

A Motion to reject an SI is deemed a fatal Motion. It benefits the Executive to use such language; it is misleading. Rejecting an SI is not akin to rejecting on Second Reading a Bill that comes from the Commons. Voting down a Bill kills it for the rest of the Session; voting down an SI kills it until the next day. The Government can simply re-lay it with the odd word changed. If we were to keep rejecting it, that might be a different matter, but simply voting down an SI when first laid is akin not to rejecting a Bill but to passing an amendment and inviting the Commons to think again. Rejecting an SI is to invite the Government to think again, which they can do and, if necessary, submit a fresh SI, accepting the points made by the House. Despite what some have claimed, there is no convention that we do not reject SIs. The House has asserted its right to reject SIs and on rare occasions has done so.

We will be effective in our work in respect of delegated legislation only if we have the political will to act. We have the power. We owe it to the two committees that have reported to be willing to exercise it.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I join everyone who has spoken in this debate in congratulating Her Majesty on this unique milestone.

It is important to recognise the contribution of the Queen not only to consolidating the position of the monarchy in the UK but also to national and international governance. She has consolidated the position of the monarchy as being above politics. The monarchy has moved from a position of active engagement in the political life of the nation to one of political neutrality. That has been the direction of travel since the late 19th century, but it has been achieved notably during the Queen’s long reign. Some people wonder what the point of the monarch is if she exercises no powers, but by transcending politics she has strengthened the position of the monarchy, and to the benefit of the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, captured the position eloquently in his piece in last week’s edition of the House magazine, when he wrote that her role as head of the nation is

“being about the soul of this country”,

embodying expressing identity and national mood, providing a sense of stability and continuity to allow for and facilitate change, recognising success and achievement, and supporting the idea of service to others. She can bring people together in a way that politicians cannot.

The Queen holds prerogative powers that she exercises on advice, and powers that she exercises where she relies on convention or practice, but which serve a purpose for still vesting in the Crown. The fact that, ultimately, she could employ them is important. It is symbolically important in signifying that although Ministers exercise the powers, there remains a higher body to which they owe a duty in exercising them. Loyalty flowing to the Crown is also important for protecting our system of government. Ironically, an unelected monarch serves as the ultimate protector of the political institutions that have displaced the sovereign as the body that governs. As Gerald Kaufman said in the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year,

“What she has done in making this United Kingdom a permanent democracy, a democracy that is impregnable, is perhaps the greatest of her many achievements”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/2012; col. 862.]


Having a monarch operating above the fray of partisan conflict reflects the value of a parliamentary, as opposed to a presidential, form of government. In a presidential system, the positions of Head of State and Head of Government are vested in one person. In a parliamentary system, the Head of State and Head of Government are separate. The Head of State can thus represent the unity of the nation in a way that a partisan figure cannot. In practical terms, it also makes for a useful division of labour between the monarch, exercising essential state functions, and the Prime Minister, focusing on delivering public policy.

Her Majesty has contributed to national governance, not only by demonstrating, by virtue of holding the Crown, that Ministers have high authority—and that the loyalty of public bodies is to the Crown, not government—but also in being in practice a repository of knowledge, as has been mentioned already in this debate, able to advise successive Prime Ministers. As Tony Blair observed,

“she has got an absolutely unparalleled amount of experience of what it’s like to be at the top of a government.”

Four of her five most recent Prime Ministers had not been born when she ascended the Throne. During her reign, she has known US Presidents from Dwight Eisenhower onwards. The value of her advice has been attested to by successive Prime Ministers. She represents not only a repository of knowledge but also someone who is not a political rival. Judging from occasions when she made public utterances—again, this has been touched upon—she appears to have a knack for asking the right questions. The same would appear to apply to her meetings with Prime Ministers. As Gordon Brown recorded, her questions

“are designed to get the best out of you.”

She has contributed internationally, not only by engaging the interest of other world leaders—an invitation to the palace or to Windsor is something not likely to be turned down—but also at times by soothing tensions at Heads of Government conferences. She has also fulfilled a major role in cementing the relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as has already been touched upon, not least in her state visit to Dublin in 2011. It was, as Paul Flynn said in the other place,

“a very powerful symbol of reconciliation, which I believe will have a profound effect on healing the wounds that have disfigured life in the island of Ireland for generations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/12; col. 870.]

She is a major source of the nation’s soft power and enhances the reputation of the United Kingdom. An Ipsos MORI global survey in 2018 found that views of the Royal Family had a net beneficial impact on people’s views of Britain.

The Queen has helped shape the monarchy, being generally deft in knowing when to act and when not to act, and enhancing the position through her dedication and obvious commitment to service. It is worth remembering that she did not ask to be Queen; she was not born to be Queen. However, when circumstances beyond her control led to her becoming heir apparent and then Queen, she dedicated herself to the service of the nation as we have heard so eloquently throughout this debate. I do not know many people—indeed, anyone other than the Queen—who have served in the same job for 70 years and with such dedication.

It is entirely fitting that today we pay tribute to what the Queen has done and the contribution she has made to the life of this nation.

House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the sole criterion for assessing the hybrid proceedings should not be whether they have proved popular or convenient to Members, but whether they have facilitated—indeed, enhanced—the capacity of the House to fulfil its functions, primarily those of scrutinising legislation and calling the Government to account for their actions and policies.

The fact that we have managed all-Hybrid Sittings is, as we have heard, a tribute to those responsible for the technical delivery of proceedings. Without their work, the bottle of parliamentary scrutiny would be near empty. As it is, it is a quarter or a half full. Some Members of the House have generalised on the basis of it being half full. The fact that the House has been able to achieve some changes to legislation and even prevent certain provisions being pursued does not make the case for a continuation of Hybrid Sittings. When one compares performance during the pandemic with the period before, we are falling short, and by a considerable margin.

The capacity of the House to engage in detailed scrutiny has diminished as the use of prerogative and order-making powers by Ministers has expanded massively. The UCL Constitution Unit, along with other bodies, has produced a damning analysis of the situation in the other place. We are in a not dissimilar position, as is clear from the report of the Constitution Committee published on 13 May. As the committee identified, the problem is not just the sheer number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament but the use of fast-track legislative procedures and inadequate explanatory material. Scrutinising Bills and ministerial actions is made difficult by procedural limitations, by the prohibition on interventions and by our inability not only to be present in numbers in the Chamber to challenge Ministers but to meet informally outside the Chamber—essential for lobbying and information exchange. We are operating, but at a sub-par level.

The way forward, as the Constitution Committee recommends, is to engage in lesson-drawing: are there features of the Hybrid Sittings that have enhanced the capacity of the House to fulfil its functions and that may therefore be worth utilising in future? I suggest that we undertake four lesson-drawing exercises rather than one. The first is to identify any features that merit being retained when we resume meeting physically. That is the most pressing inquiry. The second is to identify features that may be utilised when we decant the Palace in preparation for the restoration and renewal programme. The third is to identify features that may be utilised as part of the R&R programme and be integral when we return to the Palace. The fourth, as the Constitution Committee identifies, is to consider how we cope if there is a future crisis and we are unable to meet physically. How can we enhance current facilities, should we need ever again to have Hybrid, or purely Virtual, Sittings?

There are thus several lesson-drawing exercises. Committees may wish to continue to utilise the power they already have to take evidence online. The ability to take evidence virtually may be built into the R&R programme. Remote working by staff may be utilised more extensively, but temporarily, during the period of decant. In all our reflections, there must be one overriding consideration: the need to restore and, if possible, enhance our capacity to scrutinise legislation and call government to account. That is how we add value to the political process; that is how we complement the elected Chamber.