§
5.Speeches
(a)Length of Speeches
§ On 13th July, 1965, the House agreed nemine dissentiente to a Resolution—
§ "That speeches in this House should be shorter". (L.J. 197, p. 386.)
§ The Sub-Committee doubt whether this Resolution has had the desired effect and suggest that, as occasion arises, the House should be reminded of its terms and that it should be noted in the revised Companion. Long speeches may make it difficult for busy Peers to observe the obligation to stay to the end of a debate in which they have taken part (see paragraph 6 below).
§ (b)Reading of Speeches
§ On 17th June, 1936, the House resolved that the reading of speeches was to be deprecated (L.J. 168, p. 241). There are some occasions, however, e.g., Ministerial Statements, when it is necessary to read from a prepared text, but the Sub-Committee suggests that it is not in general conducive to good debate for Peers to read speeches. In practice many speakers may wish to have "extended notes" from which to speak, but it is in the interests of good debate that speakers do not stick too closely to the text of prepared notes.
§ (c)Maiden Speeches
§ It is usual for a maiden speaker not to be interrupted, whether or not he asks for the indulgence of the House; and to be congratulated by the next following speaker. In return the Maiden speaker is expected to be short (10–15 minutes) and unprovocative. The reason for this is twofold. First, enjoying as he does the indulgence of the House, he should not take advantage of that indulgence to express views in terms which would ordinarily provoke interruption. Secondly, he must not make it difficult for the following speaker—whatever his personal views—to congratulate him with sincerity.
§ 6.Attendance at a debate in which a Peer himself is taking part
§ Not all Peers appear to be aware of the conventions in regard to attendance at a debate in which a Peer himself is speaking.
§ Absence from a debate before a Peer takes part in it himself means that he rises to speak in ignorance, or partial ignorance, of what has already been said. This may lead to repetition of points already made and to silence on points which need to be replied to. The result is that the debate degenerates into a series of set speeches.
§ Presence after a Peer has spoken is largely a matter of courtesy to subsequent speakers who may wish to take up points or put questions on points previously raised in the debate.
§ Ideally, Peers should attend the whole of a debate in which they are taking part, but the
504§ Sub-Committee recognise that it is not practicable to lay down rules which apply in every case, and that there may be occasions when a Peer is justified in intervening in a debate although he cannot attend the whole of it. Long speeches (see paragraph 5(a)) also deter participating Peers from staying to the end of a debate. Nevertheless, it is considered discourteous for a Peer taking part in a debate not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the "winding-up" speeches.
§ 7.Declaration of Interest
§
The Sub-Committee consider that the present guidance on this subject as laid down in the Companion to the Standing Orders, page 62, is not entirely satisfactory. They commend to the attention of the Procedure Committee the words used by the present Leader of the House in a reply to Lord Balogh on 10th June, 1969:—
My Lords, there are no Standing Orders governing this matter (Peers and Declaration of Interest). It is a long-standing custom of this House that noble Lords speak always on their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Peer decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it.
§ The Sub-Committee consider that this answer is more strictly in accordance with the custom of the House than the words at present in the Companion and recommend that it should be incorporated without the first sentence in the revision of the Companion.
§
The revised passage would then read:—
'It is a long-standing custom of this House that noble Lords speak always in their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Peer decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it.' (Lord Shackleton, Lords Hansard, 10th June, 1969, Col. 523).
Subject to this, and to the guidance to Members or Employees of Public Boards, there is no reason why he should not take part in debate. It is, however, considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or sub-bordinate legislation in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward (Report of Procedure Committee, 18th May, 1960).
§ 8.Reference to the Commons and individual M.P.S
§ The Sub-Comimttee recommend that there is no justification for a change in the current rules as set forth in the Companion, pages 61–62.
§ 9.Bringing "luggage" or newspapers into the Chamber
§ The Sub-Committee believe that it is contrary to the custom of the House for books or newspapers (except for the purpose of quotation), or briefcases, or Ministerial boxes, to be brought into the Chamber; and recommend that an appropriate entry should be made in the revised Companion to this effect.