§ 1.Bowing
§
By the custom of the House all bows (except those by a Peer and his Supporters on Introduction when raising their hats to the Lord Chancellor) are Court bows, i.e., head and not body.
(a)To the Cloth of Estate
§
Standing Order No. 18 lays down that:
When the House is sitting, every Lord is to make obeisance to the Cloth of Estate on entering the House.
§
Peers, should, therefore, bow to the Cloth of Estate immediately on entering the House, but it is unnecessary for them to do so on leaving.
(a)To the Mace
§
It is in accordance with the custom of the House for Peers to bow to the Mace in procession, in virtue of its character as a symbol of the authority of the Sovereign.
(c)To the Tellers in the Division Lobby
§ It is not the custom of the House to bow to Tellers in the Division Lobby, as is the practice in the Commons. In the past when Peers attended the House covered, it was the practice for them to remove their hats, for the purpose of identification when passing through the Division Lobby. The Sub-Committee call attention to the practice whereby Peers give their names clearly to the Clerks in the Division Lobby; this practice is strongly commended both because it expedites Divisions and also because it reduces the possibility of error in compiling the Division Lists.
§ 2.Movement in the House
§ Passing between the Peer who is speaking and the Woolsack or the Lord in the Chair
§ The terms of the first paragraph of Standing Order No. 18 are:
§ "The Lords in the Upper House arc to keep dignity and order, and not to remove out of their places without just cause, to the hindrance of others that sit near them, and the disorder of the House; and are not to pass between the Woolsack and the Table, nor between the Woolsack and the Lord who is speaking."
§ The Sub-Committee consider that the Standing Order is not sufficiently known or obeyed and 502 that the House should be reminded of its terms. Although some flexibility is needed as, for example, for movement between the Government Front Bench and the Official Box, the Sub-Committee take the view that Peers should respect the terms of the Standing Order, both on entering and leaving the Chamber. Lords who are speaking should do so from their places and not from the gangways in the House.
§ They further recommend that the Standing Order be extended to cover movement not only between the Woolsack but also (when the House is in Committee) between the Chair and the Lord who is speaking. This could be achieved by inserting the words "or the Chair" after "Woolsack" at the end of the fourth line of the Standing Order.
§ 3.Conversation in the House
§
The Sub-Committee recommend that the attention of the House should be called to the terms of Standing Order No. 20:
If any Lord has occasion to speak with another Lord while the House is sitting, they are to retire to the Prince's Chamber, and not converse in the space behind the Woolsack, or else the Lord Speaker is to call them to order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation.
The Sub-Committee consider that the practice of talking in the House, as well as in the space behind the Woolsack, is increasing, contrary to the Standing Order, and that the attention of the House should be drawn to the terms of the Standing Order.
§ 4.Modes of Address and Appellations
§ The Sub-Committee recall that this subject was recently considered by the Procedure Committee, which laid down the practice of the House in a Report on Appellations dated 9lh December, 1964. Despite the guidance contained in that Report, the Sub-Committee consider that the practice as there laid down is not generally observed and suggest that St might be for the convenience of the House if the text of the Report on Appelations were included in the revised Companion. They also observe that there are some small ambiguities in the earlier Report of the Procedure Committee, to which they have given further consideration. The Report, with appropriate amendments, is attached to this Report (Annex A).
§ Further, the Sub-Committee recommend the reversal of a previous decision in regard to the appellation of women who have seats in the House. The Third Report of the Procedure Committee 1963–64, dated 11th June, 1964, recommended that there should be no change in the existing practice whereby women with seats in the House are not described in Division Lists and other House papers by the senior title (if they have one) by which they are ordinarily known, as is the practice in the case of peers, e.g. the holders of Irish peerages.
§ The Sub-Committee see no good reason for continuing this discrimination and recommend that in future the same general practice should be applied impartially to both sexes. In the case of a woman with a seat in the Lords 503 who is also the holder of a title higher than that by right of which she sits in the House, whether by inheritance, marriage or courtesy, she should generally be known by the higher title, except in the Journals of the House where it would be added in brackets after the title by right of which she sits in Parliament.