Procedure and Privileges
Wednesday, 16 September 2026
Contributions
Motion to Agree
Moved by
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Behaviour and courtesy in the Chamber; Further changes to speaking times at amending stages; New edition of the Standing Orders relating to public business; Reappointment of the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee (1st Report, HL Paper 43) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, the first part of this report proposes changes to guidance in the Companion with a view to upholding high standards of behaviour and courtesy in the Chamber. The committee recommends the strengthening of guidance to reinforce the long-standing conventions on attendance in the Chamber during debates and referring to other noble Lords. We also recommend an update to the guidance around the reading of speeches and propose a new paragraph on the dress code. To help the House make best use of the time allowed for Oral Questions, the committee proposes that the first supplementary question on each Oral Question should not exceed 45 seconds and that subsequent supplementary questions should not exceed 30 seconds. We also remind the House of the guidance already set out on interventions and talking in the Chamber. The committee also considered the rules on speaking times at amending stages of Bills to encourage the efficient use of time. The committee proposes that the advisory speaking time for Back-Benchers on Report and at subsequent amending stages should be reduced from 10 to eight minutes. This reflects well-established practice that debates should become increasingly focused and avoid repeating previous arguments at length as a Bill progresses through its amending stages. We also propose strengthening the guidance on withdrawing or pressing amendments to emphasise that the mover of an amendment should not make an extended speech at the end of a debate on a group of amendments. We further recommend strengthening the guidance in the Companion on debate at the “Bill do now pass” stage to emphasise that Members should not thank lists of named people who have supported them in their work on the Bill, well intentioned though this is. These changes, if agreed, will come into effect following the Conference Recess. Finally, the committee has authorised the production of a new edition of the Standing Orders. As part of this new edition, we propose four broadly technical amendments. The first is that Standing Order 21(4) be deleted to remove the reference to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain as they are no longer Members of your Lordships’ House. The second is that Standing Order 56 be amended to make clear that a quorum of 30 applies to any Question relating to subordinate legislation. The third is that Standing Order 83 be repealed because its provisions are now obsolete. The fourth is that references to “virtual” contributions be changed to “remote” contributions for consistency across the document. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I welcome the report in general. I say a personal word of thanks to the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee, which has dealt sympathetically with those of us who have either chronic or incurable diseases. It is very encouraging in relation to that. I want to mention other aspects of the report, particularly on Members reading speeches and the length of questions and ministerial answers. That has supposedly been part of our procedure for some time now. In spite of the fact that the Government Chief Whip gets up regularly and asks for questions and answers to be shorter, most Members pay no attention whatever to him. I do everything that the Government Chief Whip tells me, so I do not know why everyone else does not do what he tells them. However, it may be that he—or she, as it was before—is not the most appropriate person to do this. I am wondering whether the Procedure and Privileges Committee might consider once more the role of the Lord Speaker.
Noble Lords
Oh!
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I hear some “hear, hears” and also some mutterings, mostly from the other side, which of course I am used to. However, if we think about it, if we are to improve our procedures and to get shorter questions and answers, we do need some discipline. I argue that the best person to make sure we get that kind of discipline in the House is the person sitting in the chair. I know that some people opposite, and even one or two people on our side, say, “We don’t want to adopt the procedures of the other place”, but, with respect, it is not just the procedures of the other place. It is the procedure of any meeting, whether it be a trade union meeting, a political meeting, a church guild or whatever, that the person in the chair says, “You’ve had long enough. Bring your remarks to a conclusion”.
Noble Lords
Oh!
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I can take the hint.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I will raise a couple of points and seek clarification from the Senior Deputy Speaker. In paragraph 19 of the report, what exactly does “business attire” mean in the proposed new paragraph 4.14A? As I understand it, if you bring a guest to the Bar of the House, they have to wear a tie. Do we all have to wear a tie in here? I hope that is the case, because most of us do. Can I also ask for another clarification on paragraph 30 of the report? The Earl Marshal was a hereditary Peer who has been defenestrated but, as I understand it, the Lord Great Chamberlain is a life Peer, so presumably it would not apply to him.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords and Baronesses, I want to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. What my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker failed to mention was the introduction for the first time of a reference to dress code in the Companion —previously, it was, in effect, folklore. I am not against putting that in, because the term “business attire” is meaningless. You cannot take the way people dress here as business attire; I take it to mean what people wear in the City and Canary Wharf. In truth, the only people now wearing ties for business purposes are estate agents and funeral directors. The tie is disappearing. If “business attire” means anything, it means that we would not be wearing ties. The truth is that the term is meaningless. It certainly means nothing in relation to the noble Baronesses in this House, who, in effect, can wear whatever they like.
Noble Lords
Oh!
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Indeed, I am suggesting that we can leave it to the good judgment of not just noble Baronesses but noble Lords in this House as to what they should wear—and do not get me started on the Bishops.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, saying that questions need to be completed in 30 or 45 seconds is incredibly regressive. We have more Members, more Ministers, more ministries and more legislation than ever before, and to imagine that you can ask a detailed question in about 30 or 35 words is impossible. Somebody just mentioned people reading notes, but the people who read notes are Ministers: they often just read out their briefings and do not even answer the questions asked. I do not know whether this will apply to them as well —that they must not read and have to memorise all their briefings. I think it is a bad move, and I would certainly not support this kind of change.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has ever been to a synagogue board meeting, but I can assure him that that is an exception to the rule which he put forward as to orderly conduct of business. More substantively, I would not appear in the High Court without a tie, and I would not want to appear in the High Court of Parliament without one either. I gently remind the noble Lord that, when Arthur Andersen introduced dress-down Fridays, a Savile Row tailor was asked whether that would be the end of the suit; he replied that it would be the end of Arthur Andersen—and he was right.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to intervene on the question of the definition of “business attire”, and I look forward to the Senior Deputy Speaker elucidating that in a moment. Since we are talking about speeding up the business of the House, I have to say that the suggestion that, to reduce the time-wasting that sometimes occurs here, we should reduce the time limit from 10 minutes to eight minutes hardly seems to be a game-changer. In fact, if we are not able to make the critical point succinctly at that stage of the consideration of a Bill, why we are not considering reducing the limit to three or four minutes?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two brief points. One is to support the comment made by my noble friend George Foulkes about supplementary questions. Our Chief Whip does a great job in identifying which party should come next, but he cannot choose between Members of one party. We still have a situation of relative chaos. I know at least one Member of the Conservative Party who point-blank said to me that he will not intervene in Question Time because he does not like the chaos that there is. My second point is a minor one. One of the paragraphs talks about not repeating lists of named people who have helped. I thought there was a tradition that we respect maiden speakers but that the only person who should thank the maiden speaker is the person speaking afterwards—not every other speaker in the debate, which seems to be the pattern at the moment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—as I think he likes to be addressed—in relation to bringing Oral Questions under control, I am grateful to the Senior Deputy Speaker for his efforts to do that and I think the proposals are sound, but may I seek clarification from him that in attempting to monitor these newly introduced time limits, the clock will, as it does when we exceed speaking allocation limits, flash in red and show the speaker they are out of time? That might be a more reassuring prospect to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, than the thoroughly alarming prospect of the Lord Speaker intervening.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I appeared in your Lordships’ House in 2006 and Questions were being asked. I had listened, time was nearly running out, and I spoke, but I had a piece of paper. All around the House, word went out: “Reading, reading, reading!” And I showed my piece of paper, which did not have a word on it. So, dear friends—I say “friends” because “Lords” sounds a little too grand here—for a self-regulating body to give power to the Lord Speaker to intervene in a debate is trying to imitate what happens in the other place. We need to discipline ourselves. For example, if there are only 20 seconds left of the 10 minutes at Question Time on a particular Question, people should not ask a question. We have been breaking the time limit, so we need to discipline ourselves, and I, for one, want to endorse the report of the committee that worked on this. Let us try it out and see what happens. Maybe next time when I hear a very long, read speech, I will stand up and say, “Reading, reading, reading!”
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I think a dress code is a sign of respect. We sit in this beautiful House, and it is respectful to dress properly. We are on the television and people are viewing the proceedings in this House. We are the only House that does not have a strict dress code. When we look at the United States, France and the European Union, we see that every man wears a tie, women dress in suits and, especially in the summer, they cover themselves.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important short debate, but I hope that all those who have contributed will be with us at 10 pm tonight.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I think I have an answer to all the questions which have been asked. First, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, seems to be advocating a power grab by the Lord Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. I have to say, we are a self-governing House. I have been in this House a very long time, longer than most noble Lords, and I have twice seen noble Lords intervene on fellow Peers and put the Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard. There are procedures for doing that, but the bottom line is that this is a self-governing House and any change from that would be a radical change and a matter for the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, talked about “business attire” and I agree with the general points he made on that. On his final question, it is the Lord Chamberlain and not the Lord Great Chamberlain who is a life Peer—I hope that clears up that matter. I want to make the point that no women wear ties in this Chamber. While I was a magistrate, I went through this exact issue about whether magistrates should wear ties when they sit in magistrates’ courts. In that context, the rule of the court is that participants should uphold the dignity of the court. There is no explicit reference to wearing a tie, but I think that guidance is appropriate for this Chamber as well. It is for each individual Member to dress appropriately. There are a few male noble Lords who choose not to wear a tie and that is a matter for them. My noble friend Lord Davies also mentioned the dress code. I can see that he is excelling himself, because he is wearing his aubergine suit at the moment, which is unique in this Chamber, and I am glad that he is raising the standards of male dress within the House. My noble friends Lord Sikka, Lord Harris and Lord Dubs basically put forward ideas that were more radical than what is proposed in the report. In the report, we have emphasised the existing tenor of the guidance on how to behave in the Chamber. A reduction has been proposed in speaking times on Report and at later stages of a Bill. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, accurately, the clock will flash at eight minutes at those later stages, but there will be no change to the way that the clock will behave in Oral Questions. It will be for the Chief Whip or the party whips to intervene if they feel that somebody is going over the allotted time. I think I have covered all the points, so I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5408634.