House of Lords rejects government's EU withdrawal bill - as it happened
Follow updates from Westminster here
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The House of Lords has inflicted a further defeat on the government over its Brexit plans.
Peers voted in favour of an amendment to the EU Withdrawal that would give Parliament greater powers to block a no-deal Brexit, teeing up a Commons showdown when MPs vote on the bill on Wednesday.
Pro-EU Tory MPs have warned they are ready to vote down the government's plans for what should happen in the case of a no-deal Brexit. They want Parliament to be given more powers if no deal is agreed or if the agreement Theresa May makes with Brussels is deemed unacceptable by MPs.
Ministers, however, have insisted that Parliament should not be allowed to bind the government's hands.
Elsewhere, Theresa May delivered a major speech outlining plans to boost NHS funding. The prime minister confirmed over the weekend that spending will rise by £20bn a year by 2020 but faces questions over how this will be funded.
As it happened...
BREAKING: The government has said it will establish a panel of experts to assess whether laws around the medicinal use of cannabis should be amended.
The Lords' debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill is underway, but the most contentious issue, which relates to Parliament having a "meaningful vote" in the case of a no-deal Brexit, won't be discussed until later. We're expecting the vote on that to take place sometime between 6pm and 7pm, and of course we'll be bringing you all the live updates.
It's all got a bit strange in the Lords as peers try to shoehorn World Cup references into their speeches on the EU Withdrawal Bill...
Labour peer Lord Goldsmith says:
"I'll speak very briefly because, like everyone else, I want to watch a football game later on this evening. I hope I'm not alone in the House in saying that, whilst it may be true that we'd stand a greater chances against the likes of Brazil and others if we joined a European football team and abandoned the England one, personally I would not be in favour of that course of action."
Viscount Hailsham, who has tabled the Lords amendment that is expected to result in a government defeat this evening, is currently speaking in the Lords. He confirms he has altered his amendment, nicknaming the new version Grieve II (the original amendment was tabled in the Commons by Dominic Grieve).
He says the new amendment "reflects the agreement that Mr Grieve believed that he had made with the solicitor general. Mr Grieve thought that Grieve II was agreed to but it appears that senior ministers objected and it has now been repudiated".
He adds: "By moving Grieve II, what I am doing is asking your lordships to make a decision which will enable the House of Commons to vote on what Mr Grieve believes was agreed with the government. That is the purpose of my amendment."
This isn't going to make pleasant viewing for Theresa May....
Explaining the process that led to talks between the government and Tory rebels collapsing last week, Viscount Hailsham suggests the prime minister went back on her word..
He says:
"Following the undertaking given by the solicitor general [during last week's Commons debate], negotiations were commenced. These negotiations included a meeting with the prime minister. It is reported by those present at that meeting that the prime minister herself gave a personal assurance to those present that their concerns about the risk of a no-deal Brexit would be addressed.
"I have known Mr Grieve for very many years. He is a man of the utmost personal and professional integrity. I accept without reservation what he has said about those negotiations."
He says until the afternoon of last Thursday, when the compromise deal collapsed, Mr Grieve was "confident that he could achieve a sensible accommodation".
To loud cheers in the Lords, the peer says criticism of Mr Grieve in the press has been "disgraceful", particularly in the Daily Mail, and says "the authors ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves" .
Lots of MPs are watching the debates in the Lords from the entrance to the chamber. I can see Tory rebels Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry and Antoinette Sandbach, plus Labour's Matt Pennycook and Chris Leslie.
Former Tory party leader Michael Howard - now Lord Howard of Lympne - says the consequences of Viscount Hailsham's amendment "would be to confer upon Parliament a negotiating power which has always resided in the hands of the executive in our country."
He says the amendment is not required to give the Commons a meaningful vote in the case of a no-deal Brexit, because the government's own amendment, if passed by the Lords, could be amended by MPs to ensure this is included.
That's all for today - keep checking http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics for all the latest updates on tonight's votes.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments