Table of contents

Approximate read time: 5 minutes

The ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of the House of Lords’ includes a paragraph about members reading speeches. It notes that:

The House has resolved that the reading of speeches is “alien to the custom of this House, and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates”. It is acknowledged, however, that on some occasions, for example ministerial statements, it is necessary to read from a prepared text. In practice, some speakers may wish to have ‘extended notes’ from which to speak, but it is not in the interests of good debate that they should follow them closely.[1]

It was 90 years ago this year that the House resolved this was a custom of Lords debate.[2]

1. “Valuable spontaneity”

On 17 June 1936, the Earl of Crawford tabled a motion about the reading of speeches. It was based on concerns, as expressed by Lord Crawford, that the House of Lords would “cease to be a deliberative assembly if we cease to deliberate and fall into the easy-going habit of reading our speeches”.[3] He said he did not want to be dogmatic about it, nor to lay down any “hard-and-fast lines”. He thought that there were occasions when reading speeches was acceptable, for example where personal explanation was needed, or the subject was intricate, such as finance or naval construction. However, he believed there was “a growing sense of anxiety at the increasing practice of having speeches typewritten out and delivering them from that text” which “spoils debates”.[4] He said that peers coming with prepared speeches often spoke without reference to what had gone before and once delivered they left the chamber. Lord Crawford said notes were important and that he would “never address this House without notes”. He believed notes were necessary to ensure the facts were marshalled and arguments were advanced in “proper sequence”. He argued “set speeches inevitably lead to set debates” which makes them “stiff” and devoid of “valuable spontaneity”.[5]

2. “Great deal worse than anything we have now”

Lord Snell, then leader of the Labour Party in the House of Lords, thought the resolution raised a question of “general interest” but did not give rise to “issues of really serious moment”.[6] He said the disadvantages of reading speeches were “known to all of us”. He criticised government ministers for reading speeches which, he thought, led to Parliament listening “to the echo of a remote and impersonal government department”.[7] However, he acknowledged, ministers could present facts to the House from a script, and without facts it would be “a great deal worse than anything we have now”. Lord Snell went on to argue reading a speech could suggest the speaker, having taken the trouble to write it down, had taken the trouble to think about it first. He was sympathetic to those reading their speeches because the House of Lords was “by far the most difficult assembly that I have ever had to address”.[8] This, he thought, was because speeches were often met by silence from a “tolerant and patient assembly”. Lord Snell concluded that the motion itself “should serve to draw attention to the matter” but argued it would not be “wise for us to prohibit written speeches”.[9]

Lord Mottistone, leader of the Liberal peers, supported the motion. In his speech, he said that leader of the House should “consider decreeing” ministers “should never read their speeches from a typewritten document” because otherwise “a minister loses touch with the House”.[10] Lord Mottistone said Lord Davies’ “admirable” speeches were not listened to “because he has always a typewritten document”. He thought “extempore speeches read better”.[11]

3. “When does a note cease to be a note”

The leader of the House, Viscount Halifax, intervened. He defended ministers reading speeches:

[…] we do not infrequently have to answer on not unimportant matters of policy for departments for which we are not directly responsible, and although we are naturally the most humble body of men ourselves, the world insists upon attaching in the case of some of us wholly disproportionate importance to what we say.[12]

He added that he thought “the more preparation the fewer the notes that become necessary” but wondered “when does a note cease to be a note and become a manuscript that paralyses our thoughts and powers of expression”.[13] He was in favour of refraining from “attempting to lay down any too formal a rule upon a matter of this kind”.

The Earl of Midleton referred to Joseph Chamberlain’s speeches in the House of Commons, describing how they “were so absolutely well prepared that nothing threw him off his point” even though “he never appeared to read a line”.[14] He argued “there seems to be a great confusion of thought expressed in the idea that either you speak unprepared or else you have to depend on written notes to such a degree”. He said he thought speeches were influenced by the fact “most debates here are really the statement of a case to a vast majority” and party imbalance in the House of Lords meant votes were rarely influenced by what had been said. This would be resolved by the Conservatives and Labour being “more evenly poised”.[15]

4. “Read to the bitter end”

In brief remarks, Lord Monteagle of Brandon said he would prefer there to be a rule to prohibit anybody from reading a speech.[16] He thought to not do so would lead some speakers to be put off, leaving just those speeches “to which nobody wants to listen and which the speaker himself unfortunately feels bound to read to the bitter end”.

The Bishop of Norwich defended ministers reading speeches because they were “not to persuade but to instruct”.[17] He thought the growing practice of reading speeches was because of the “existence of the typewriter”. This meant “more and more people are tempted to get rid of the trouble of remembering what they have prepared”.

Lord Rockley supported the motion and agreed the practice of reading had “grown up slowly”.[18] In contrast, Lord Arnold did not believe the case for discouraging the reading of speeches was “so well made as the noble Earl himself appeared to think”.[19] He said reading speeches had been going on some time but it was important to differentiate between “a full typewritten manuscript” and those who had cultivated the art of being able to read without the House realising. Lord Arnold also agreed that there were exceptions. He mentioned those in “very distinguished positions” such as ex officers, ambassadors, and ex governors. He said “they have to be careful what they say; indeed, it is their duty”.[20]

5. “Latitude”

Then chairman of committees the Earl of Onslow said the reading of speeches had been happening for some time but did not believe there had been a “very great increase”.[21] He thought, giving the example of a frontbencher piloting a bill through the House, “latitude” should be given for notes. He said distinguishing between statements and speeches was necessary, saying the former needed great care, particularly in relation to foreign affairs. He added memorising facts and figures were “not a gift that is given to all of us” and, particularly for a minister at second reading or committee, it would be impossible to “carry all the details in his mind”. Lord Onslow said this was also true of peers who represented associations whom it would be “unfair to deny […] the full use of notes” when moving amendments.[22] He thought members should be trusted to do their best to present their views in the most lucid and clear form.

Lord Rankeillour also defended ministers using notes. He thought the “cure” would be Lords ministers representing fewer government departments and to give them better administrative support there.[23] Viscount Mersey intervened to take issue with the reading of speeches by peers representing societies or corporations. He thought that was one reason for the increased practice of reading speeches.[24]

Closing the debate, Lord Crawford said he hoped the motion would pass. He concluded:

I do not ask for a standing order. It is not a standing order, it is not even a rule, but it is an expression of our wish—I hope our corporate wish—that what I am confident is a growing practice should be checked.[25]

The House agreed to the motion without division.

Image by Camille Orgel on Unsplash.

References

  1. House of Lords, ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of the House of Lords’, 2025, para 4.46. Return to text
  2. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, cols 82–119. Return to text
  3. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 82. Return to text
  4. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 83. Return to text
  5. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, cols 83–4. Return to text
  6. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 85. Return to text
  7. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, cols 85–6. Return to text
  8. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 87. Return to text
  9. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 89. Return to text
  10. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 90. Return to text
  11. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 92. Return to text
  12. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 97. Return to text
  13. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 98. Return to text
  14. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 100. Return to text
  15. HL Hansard, 18 June 1936, col 101. Return to text
  16. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 102. Return to text
  17. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 105. Return to text
  18. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 106. Return to text
  19. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 107. Return to text
  20. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 109. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 111. Return to text
  22. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, cols 112–13. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 114. Return to text
  24. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, cols 116–17. Return to text
  25. HL Hansard, 17 June 1936, col 119. Return to text