With the debate planned to go on overnight, and beds and refreshments provided to sustain the august members, some of the participants appeared to be succumbing to tiredness.
Rubbing their eyes, a couple seemed to have slumped in their seats as the discussions on a referendum on the voting system - together with a separate move to redraw parliamentary boundaries and reduce the numbers of MPs - rumbled on.
Debate: Some of the Lords appear to be struggling to stay awake during the Parliamentary Voting & Constituencies Bill
Former Liberal leader Lord Steel believed the debate on the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill could even finish off elderly peers, saying: 'I'm 72, but there are older ones. I don't know how they are going to survive.'
The debate - which has to end by 1pm today because of timetabling issues in the House - began yesterday afternoon at 3.48pm.
And it could also turn out to be one of the most grumpy ever seen in the chamber, with accusations that the Opposition is deliberately delaying decisions as it wants to split the different issues.
The Lords' Deputy Speakers, who preside from the Woolsack, have organised a rota until 1pm today.
The House must rise by that time to avoid disruption to the formal ceremony of introduction, in which three new peers - Tories Bob Edmiston and ex-MP Sir Michael Lord and Labour's Stewart Wood - will be sworn in shortly after 2.15pm.
Weary: Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock looks tired during the marathon debate
The longest Lords sitting was on 10-11 March 2005, when peers sat from 11am until 7.31pm the following evening, debating amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The House normally sits until about 10pm.
But peers did not rise until 8.47am on the Education Reform Bill in June 1988, 7.58am on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill in October 2000, 5.12am on the Football (Disorder) Bill in July 2000, and 4.54am on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill in October 2003.
Writing on his blog yesterday, former Labour minister Lord Knight said of the current debate: 'It is a shame that the Government didn't want to do a deal on this Bill to avoid this extraordinary stand-off that is resulting in Lords being kept up all night tonight and maybe tomorrow and beyond.
Lengthy: Lord Anderson of Swansea listens to Lord Campbell-Savours with his eyes shut
'It doesn't do any of us any good or aid the reputation of the House.
'Many peers appear a little bad tempered and the normal politeness and camaraderie is showing signs of strain.'
Lords Leader Lord Strathclyde told peers: 'While it's right that this House undertakes proper and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, it is also right that the House deals with legislation in reasonable time.'
He went on, amid Labour protests: 'The Opposition's approach has been consistently and deliberately slow. This time last week the House debated for six hours just two amendments.
'That is not good scrutiny. There is no precedent for moving so slowly. The Opposition have dragged their heels. They have had their fun. It is now time for this House to behave responsibly.'
It would be 'extremely serious' if the Lords were to stand in the way of a referendum on voting reform on the Alternative Vote taking place on May 5, the same day as council and devolved elections, the Tory Cabinet minister warned.
Crossbencher Baroness Butler-Sloss said one amendment had been debated for nearly four hours without a vote. 'I wonder, and I believe I am not alone, what is actually going on,' she said.
Lord Strathclyde added last night: 'The situation has become urgent because the Labour Party have decided to go on a marathon 'go slow' on this Bill ever since we started committee.
'I have no desire to have an all-night sitting nor a very late sitting.
'It is entirely in the hands of the Opposition how long we sit here this evening.
'We could not go any slower than we have done over the course of the last eight (committee) days.'
Lord Strathclyde went on: 'The truth is, my Lords, that the Labour Party have a political objective to break this key coalition Bill, to stop the referendum and stop the reduction of MPs.'
With the debate becoming increasingly fractious Liberal Democrat Lord Greaves appealed for calm.
He said: 'It's time that everybody around the House just calmed down a little bit, in particular those Lords who think it's reasonable to spend 12 hours ... on three amendments.
'I believe that is an abuse of the procedures of this House.'
Labour's Lord Falconer made a further bid to adjourn proceedings at 9am this morning - after more than 17 hours of debate on just five amendments.
He said many peers relied on the House of Lords not sitting in the mornings because they had outside employment.
'But just as important as that point is the fact that we need to show a bit of leadership now in this House and reach an agreement,' he said.
'There are two conflicting views being expressed - that the Government insist on having their Bill in full whenever they want and we are saying yes, you can have your referendum but there should be proper scrutiny of part two of the Bill.'
Legislation to pave the way for the referendum has to be in place by February 16, according to rules laid down by the Electoral Commission.
A delay could also cost millions since costs have been kept down as a result of holding the referendum on the same day as local elections on May 5.
Lord Falconer said: 'If the Government insist on their timetabling arrangements, then we have no option but to do all in our power to ensure that the Bill does get proper scrutiny and therefore that it will not receive Royal Assent by February 16 if it still contains Part 1 and Part 2.'
He told peers the Bill 'cannot complete its still substantial stages in this House with both parts of the Bill retained in time to get Royal Assent by February 16'.
The Government has allowed two more committee days on the Bill, today and Wednesday, but there are Lords conventions that require certain delays before its subsequent report stage and third reading.
Crossbencher Lord Low of Dalston appealed for calm as the debate became more irritable.
'What strikes me is that we're all getting rather ragged now, the debate is getting rather scratchy, there's even a tendency for passions to become inflamed,' he said.
Labour former Lords chief whip Lord Grocott described the preparation of beds for peers during the all-night sitting as an 'insult' to MPs.
He said: 'While we were discussing this matter of crucial importance to the House of Commons, beds were being arranged in this House so that members of the House of Lords, while their House was debating culling Members of the House of Commons, should rest peacefully asleep.
'I think that is an insult to the other House.
'I think if the reverse procedure would be applied, if beds were being provided in the House of Commons while they were debating our future, and most of the House of Commons were asleep, we would quite properly be having something to say about it.' ( dailymail.co.uk )
No comments:
Post a Comment