You say that, but surely the whole days preceding are formatted and laid out for those to attend, otherwise no one would know what is been done and when. So they would be aware a reading of the casualties was the next item on the agenda.
@Nutloose, I've looked into this, and turns out that the DfID Afghanistan statement wasn't in the published business of the House. Also, "a reading of the casualties" would not have been an agenda item anyway, and in this case was not necessarily expected from a DfID statement. Tribute had already been paid in the Lords to the same named casualties, RIP. I hope this will cast some light:
1. As I am sure most people know, it has quite rightly become the custom to pay tribute to recent casualties, in both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of debates related to Defence, Afghanistan, etc. Tribute is very often paid again by other speakers later in the debate, particularly but not confined to those opening on behalf of their parties. This happens also at the weekly Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons.
2. A quick check of the parliamentary record reveals that there had been uncertainty as to when the House would adjourn for the day. This was
clarified at 3.38 pm. Then, according to the Mail story, "The red benches were packed as the clerks worked through a series of procedural matters", but the parliamentary record shows this took no more than 2 minutes.
3. The record also shows that it had not been clear that the earlier Commons Department for International Development quarterly statement on Afghanistan would be repeated in the Lords that day. The Government spokesman (Baroness Northover) responded to Lord Dannatt's complaint:
Yes; I have noted what the noble Lord has said. It was not known until today that this Statement would be repeated in the Lords. The fact that I am speaking on behalf of DfID but answering on behalf of the MoD and the FCO may have made people think that the Statement would be DfID-focused. My noble friend who is the Minister for the MoD usually gives those names, and gave them when he last answered a Question. Therefore I left a gap as noble Lords began to leave. I hoped that they would hear what I was saying, but I think that some of them did not realise. I saw noble Lords pause and stop, and when they heard what I was saying they responded. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
(My italics and bold) Source:
Afghanistan - Quarterly Statement.
4. So what happened is that the DfID Afghanistan Statement was not a confirmed item of business, and when it was confirmed a good number of peers remained in the Chamber for that Statement. (Almost certainly more peers than the number of MPs who remained for the same DfID Statement in the Commons.) With a number of peers making their way past another number of peers who were remaining for the Statement, not all being necessarily athletic, it inevitably took some time for the leavers to leave and the House to settle down for the Statement.
5. The bit in bold in Lady Northover's response shows that she did leave a bit of a gap, but she still started speaking while many peers were still making their way out of the Chamber. Some of them realised what was happening and stopped, others were not listening to Lady Northover's opening remarks and did not stop.
6. Lessons should be learned but I do not believe that any disrespect was intended. It is up to the House, but Lord Dannatt's proposal could have the unintended consequence that extra tributes will not be paid unless already flagged up in the business of the House.