The long–suffering Doorkeepers who look after us so well, and manage so much of the activity in the Lords, have the invidious task of making sure that anyone who walks through the Prince’s Chamber (the lobby to the Chamber itself) is properly dressed. I know, because I tabled a question to the Chairman of Committees to check.
I asked “whether there is a dress code for those passing through the Prince’s Chamber when the House is sitting; if so, what it is; how it is enforced; and whether it applies to men and women.”
The chairman replied: “The dress code in the Prince’s Chamber is the same as in the main catering outlets for Members: men should wear a jacket and tie, and women should be suitably attired. This dress code applies equally to Members, guests, staff and officials. The code is enforced by the Doorkeepers, who rely on the co-operation of Members. I take this opportunity to remind Members that they should adhere to this dress code at all times and ensure that their guests and staff do likewise.”
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the media thought that I was pompously deploring some collapse in dress sense. Far from it. I was merely pointing out that – since the route from any other part of the building to the Royal Gallery or the Robing Room (both of which are favourites for visitors to see) – has to pass through the Prince’s Chamber we were asking the impossible. How could we insist that visitors (or even staff) always dressed up for this purpose? What about children? And what is considered “suitable attire” for women in the 21st Century? And how could we ask the Doorkeepers to enforce these rules?
My further letter to the Chairman has now produced a speedy response which answers some of these questions. He writes: “It is of course desirable for Members to advise their guests, before they visit, that they should dress appropriately if they will be in the building during sitting hours. In practice this will not always be possible but provided that Members keep their guests moving when passing through Prince’s Chamber – as they should do anyway – the impact should be minimal.
“The dress code for children will of course be different to that for adults and the Doorkeepers can be expected to exercise their discretion – the key is that the children should not be dressed in an unduly scruffy fashion. Similarly, the question of what constitutes “suitable attire” for women is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but most people can make a sensible assessment of what is considered smart clothing and what is unacceptably informal.”
I fancy we have not heard the last of this. What do you think?
I think it’s a waste of time asking such sillyness through parliamentary questions when, if you really needed to know, you could have written a letter like you subsequently did anyway.
Following on from my last comment, in the Lords I believe it costs on average £87.50 for a written question to be answered. Even if this question didn’t cost quite that much it would still be a waste of money compared to sending a short letter through the internal mail or, better still, just asking one of the door keepers or the chairman in passing.
The few times I have been down to the Prince’s Chamber, I think they tend to be pragmatic. There’s a lot of school groups and so on that visit Parliament and they tend to come in whatever they wish!
I think some mode of decorum should be enforced but it should be flexible and liberal. As long as they don’t wear hoods and walk around with their shirts wrapped round their waists!
Or is that a bit snobbish of me?
Sorry, James, you have missed the point of our Written Questions. They are not simply to get private information for ourselves, but to extract and publish information which may be of interest to other Peers, the media and the public … indeed for the taxpayers who pay for them. We are here to reveal decisions – however trivial or misguided – not to keep them secret.
It’s probably worth mentioning that Peers ask far fewer written questions than MPs. As a general observation, i would say they receive more substantive answers, too.
Does the same dress code apply to Parliament? I hope not!
The whole business of ‘dress codes’ can get a bit silly, and I think you are right to establish some ‘common sense’ guidelines.
I once worked in an office, where after much ‘huffing and puffing’, it was decreed that we could have ‘dress down Fridays’ where ‘business casual’ [sic] was to be allowed.
This then resulted in much lobbying for ‘business casual’ to be allowed throughout the week for ‘non-customer-facing’ roles..
Unless one was having an ‘important meeting’..
This then degenerated further by people who didn’t like the fact that we no longer had ‘dress down Fridays’ [the fact that we had dress-down Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays… being lost on them..]
So eventually ‘dress-down Fridays’ were introduced again, with staff being able to wear pretty much what they pleased, thus resulting in many people turning up wearing the clothes they would be going out ‘clubbing’ with that evening.
So I think you are right not to go down the route of having a ‘free for all’, as someone will always try and push that to the very limit of sartorial taste..
As a researcher, I was having to grab something from the Printed Paper Office last week and was hauled over the coals as I passed through the Prince’s Chamber for not wearing a tie. I am certainly not one to wish to bring the House into disrepute, and would never dream of dressing inappropriately so dangerously near to the chamber. I was wearing a tweed three-piece suit at the time, certainly highly formal and the design of which would simply not suit a tie.
The indignant doorkeeper threatened to “box my ears,” (a phrase surely not used outside the Beano for the last fifty years) if he caught me untied again.
I advised he raised the issue with Black Rod and trotted along.
From the way some Members of “The other place” dress, I doubt very much a Dress Code (or Sense) applies in there.
As for the “Lords” Well?
Dress code reminds me of school and uniforms. A uniform is a great leveller and simplifies considerably the expensive pressure put upon parents by their children to be trendy.
I have always thought that Parliamentarians should adopt a uniform of some sort but perhaps they exist not to be level but unique. The puritans managed to have a uniformity of dress but did this contribute to their fall from grace?
Members of the House of Lords are not paid a salary and I feel sure many live on very modest means. So it is to their great credit and with few exceptions that they are so well turned out in chamber. Only the clergy and house officials are uniformed in chamber.
The Commons on the other hand have MPs all lined up in rows that seems to accentuate differing dress styles. Given that many act like children is there an acceptable case for them all to have ‘school’ uniforms?