Procedure and Privileges
Debate between Lord Bellingham and Lord Davies of Brixton(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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.