PEERS have been spared an all-night sitting over a controversial move to pass in one day a bill extending the Brexit process in a bid to avoid a no-deal scenario.
After seven hours of procedural wrangling on whether the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill should be pushed through in just one sitting, Chief Whip Lord Taylor of Holbeach announced a deal had been reached with Labour.
Under the agreement the bill, which squeaked through the Commons by one vote late on Wednesday night, will have its second reading in the Lords on Thursday night.
But its detailed committee and report stages, and third reading, will be taken on Monday next week, sparing weary peers the prospect of votes through the night.
The move came after pro-Brexit filibustering Tories were accused of trying to “thwart” the will of the elected Commons by forcing a series of unsuccessful votes aimed at delaying the bill for greater scrutiny.
Labour Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town vowed to be in the chamber all night if necessary to see the legislation through, insisting “unconventional times” demand “unconventional measures”.
She urged the House to suspend its standing orders to deal with Labour MP Yvette Cooper’s measure in one sitting but critics branded this an abuse of procedure.
Hayter said the country faces the possibility of an exit from the EU without a deal – “a disorderly exit which nobody wants” which she said would have dire consequences for industry. The bill would ensure there is a legal requirement on the Prime Minister to seek an extension to Article 50 to prevent a no-deal.
She accused “a small group of unelected peers” of trying to stop the Lords from considering the measure and then “trying to talk it out” through the night.
Scottish Tory Lord Forsyth, opposing Labour’s move to complete consideration of the bill in one day, said, to jeers: “This has got nothing to do with Brexit. This has to do with the procedures of the House.”
Forsyth said he was surprised and disappointed to see Labour joining with “insurgents” in the Commons, who had sought to “undermine the process and procedures” of the House.
Amid angry scenes and accusations of “chicanery” and “filibustering”, several votes to cut short lengthy debates on attempts to prevent the bill being forced through in one day were all passed with large majorities.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel