Lady Smith says Labour will table amendments to Brexit bill, including on status of EU nationals, but will not attempt to wreck March timetable

Opposition peers will not seek to wreck the government’s timetable for triggering article 50 when the Brexit bill comes before them on Monday, Labour’s leader in the House of Lords has said.

A coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat, crossbench and some Conservative peers are planning to force changes to the bill, which gives Theresa May the power to formally begin the process of leaving the EU.

Brexit bill and article 50: what happens next? Read more

Lady Smith, opposition leader in the Lords, confirmed that Labour peers would seek amendments to the bill, including on the status of EU nationals and on giving a parliament a “meaningful vote” on the deal negotiated by ministers.

But she suggested the Lords would not scupper May’s pledge to trigger article 50 by the end of March.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Smith said: “All the House of Lords can do is ask the Commons to look at an issue again that is built into the government’s own timetable. I don’t see any extended ping-pong on this at all, I’ll be very clear about that.”

Peers from across the parties will begin efforts to make changes to the Brexit bill despite warnings from Tory MPs that their actions will increase appetite for reform or abolition of the upper chamber.

The House of Lords will begin to debate the issues and amendments on Monday; almost 200 peers are keen to speak on the subject in the upper chamber, where the government has no majority. The mood of peers and the degree of their appetite for revolt will become clear during the debate, although the Lords will not vote on the issues until next week.

The Labour frontbench is seeking concessions, such as guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK – an amendment that was rejected in the Commons – and securing a more meaningful vote for parliament at the end of two-year negotiations, for which there may well be a majority.

Smith said: “We are trying to be helpful rather than difficult. I would like to see some of those concessions like having a meaningful vote at the end, like having some parliamentary engagement throughout, on the face of the bill. As we have seen with the Dubs amendment, we can’t always rely just on what the government says.”

Asked what she meant by a “meaningful vote”, Smith replied: “A vote before the European parliament votes, and for parliament to have a say in that final deal. Not just take it or leave it.”

She added: “One of our amendments for example today says the government should have regard to trade policy, science, consumer protections. Those are the kind of issues we want the government to be looking at in the negotiations.”

On the status of EU nationals in the UK, she said: “Even Ukip are now saying they never expected EU nationals to leave or not have their status confirmed. If even Ukip can say that I’m sure the government can say it too. That would be a good move, a pragmatic as well as a moral decision to go into the negotiations with.”

Some peers are seeking even more major changes. Peter Hain, a Labour former cabinet minister, wants the UK to remain a member of the single market and retain a completely open border with Ireland.

“Critics say ‘what right have I, an unelected peer, to oppose this bill or even to seek radically to amend it?” he will say in his speech. “But I was appointed by my party. And in the referendum, two-thirds of Labour electors voted to remain. That’s what I am reflecting, that’s my mandate.”

The Lib Dems are seeking similar amendments to Labour, as well as continued membership of Euratom, the nuclear body, and a second referendum on the terms of May’s EU deal.

Peter Mandelson, an architect of New Labour, called on Sunday for peers “not to throw in the towel” too quickly when it came to defying the government over the Brexit bill and for pro-EU politicians to show more courage, as he urged the public to donate in support of Tony Blair’s call for an uprising against leaving the bloc.

Speaking on the BBC1’s the Andrew Marr show, the former cabinet minister said he believed the government could be defeated in the Lords on the issues of a meaningful parliamentary vote at the end of negotiations and guaranteed rights for EU citizens in the UK.

“There is a strong body of opinion across the parties and independent peers as well that both these issues are very serious,” said Lord Mandelson.

No 10 appears to be braced to reject any amendments passed by the Lords, with a government source briefing earlier this month that peers who try to hold up the legislation would increase the appetite for reform of the upper chamber.

That view was also signalled by Dominic Raab, a Tory MP and member of Change Britain, which grew out of the Brexit campaign. The group said it had conducted research by ICM that showed 43% of 2,000 respondents would be more likely to back abolition or reform of the Lords if the chamber appeared to be obstructing Brexit.

Raab said: “Voters will not look kindly on unelected politicians seeking to obstruct both the result of the referendum and the vote of their elected representatives in the House of Commons earlier this month.

“Peers would be wise to consider this clear democratic mandate, and their own futures, when debating the article 50 bill this week.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Dominic Raab warned peers to ‘consider their own futures’ before blocking the article 50 bill. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Liz Truss, the justice secretary, said on Sunday it would be wrong for the Lords to hold up Brexit and that she fully expected the peers to “recognise the will of the people”.

Also talking on the Andrew Marr show, she said: “Peter Mandelson and others in the Labour party are trying to frustrate the will of the British people, trying to refight a battle he conclusively lost last year.”

A warning also came from Lord Lisvane,a former clerk of the House of Commons formerly known as Robert Rodgers, who said the Lords could only really ask MPs to have a rethink, rather than get engaged in a lengthy parliamentary battle. “I think the Lords will be extremely ill-advised to do anything else and I don’t think there’s any chance that they would,” he said.