Senior peers have indicated they will defy Theresa May by pushing for changes to the Brexit bill in the House of Lords, as the prime minister made a highly unusual appearance in the upper chamber to observe the first day of debate.



Gus O’Donnell, the former Whitehall cabinet secretary, and Nicholas Macpherson, the ex-permanent secretary of the Treasury, both suggested they could vote for cross-party amendments, as peers began their scrutiny of May’s Brexit legislation.

The changes most likely to pass in the next couple of weeks are amendments guaranteeing EU nationals rights in the UK and a more meaningful vote at the end of negotiations, but sources in the Lords said the government was applying intense pressure on crossbenchers to back down.

As Labour and Liberal Democrat peers led criticism of May’s plans, the prime minister looked on from the steps of the throne in the upper house. Her decision to enter the House of Lords to observe the debate was interpreted as a warning to peers not to go too far in amending her Brexit legislation, which has passed unchanged through the Commons and would give her the right to trigger article 50.

A spokesman for May said her appearance was simply a “recognition of the importance of this bill as it proceeds through the Lords”. MPs are not allowed to sit on the main benches of the Lords but May is permitted to watch proceedings from the steps of the throne because she is a privy counsellor – a right that is taken up only in extremely rare circumstances.

Labour has vowed not to block the bill but will seek amendments with other parties, which could be successful because the government has no majority in the Lords. This would send the bill back to the Commons, which could either throw it out or accept the changes.

May’s position was supported by a raft of Conservative peers arguing in favour of the bill passing unamended. Opposition peers shouted “shame” as Nigel Lawson, the former Tory chancellor, said amendments already tabled did not seek to change the legislation but to “add to them substantially and perhaps delay the bill”.

“In the unprecedented circumstances in which we find ourselves, I have to say that were the house to entertain any of the amendments it would have embarked on an ill-advised, improper and fundamentally unconstitutional manoeuvre,” he said.

But this position was challenged by Labour, the Lib Dems and several independents, who indicated their intention to argue for amendments to the Brexit bill, although they may not go as far as voting for them.



O’Donnell – the former head of the civil service under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron – was particularly critical, saying May’s “concession” of a vote on her deal was nothing at all because parliamentarians will only have a choice between her terms and no deal at all. He said the current arrangements could mean the Belgian province of Wallonia gets a vote on her Brexit deal with the EU before British parliamentarians.

Referring to a “grandfather policy”, where an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations even after a significant change, he added: “We should at the minimum grandfather the rights of EU citizens in the UK as a matter of principle.”

Macpherson said he had not decided yet whether to vote for amendments but he was concerned that “leaving all parliamentary scrutiny to the great repeal bill will be to leave it too late”.

He also warned there need to be more “battle-hardened” professional trade negotiators, as it was “not the time for gifted amateurs” who have flitted between Whitehall departments and No 10.

John Birt, the former director general of the BBC, said he was in favour of passing the bill but thought the prime minister’s white paper setting out her Brexit strategy was “flimsy as the paper it is printed on” and the government was “woefully blind to the risks we are running”.

A further warning for the government came from David Hope, the retired president of the supreme court and convenor of the crossbench peers, who said he thought the bill should pass unamended but there could be further legal challenges if the government does not give parliament a proper vote on legislation when May concludes her EU deal.

Hope said there was a respectable argument that only parliament can “authorise the concluding of an agreement with the EU” as a result of the supreme court victory of Gina Miller, forcing May to seek parliament’s consent.

“My point is the government cannot escape from the effect of the Miller decision when we reach the end of the negotiation. This is all about respecting the sovereignty of parliament,” he said. “I do hope the government will be sensible and further recourse to the courts will not be necessary.”

Angela Smith, Labour’s shadow leader in the Lords, argued that seeking amendments was not an attempt to block or delay the Brexit process.



“We will treat this bill appropriately and as seriously as we do all primary legislation,” she said. “As evidenced from the amendments already tabled, we will seek improvements, encourage ministers to make reasonable changes, and possibly, just possibly, we may ask our colleagues in the other place to reconsider on specific issues.

“That’s not delaying the process, it is part of the process and has no impact on the government’s self-imposed deadline.”



A number of Labour peers took a harder line than their frontbench, with Peter Mandelson, the former cabinet minister, saying the idea that Brexit will be as good as no Brexit is a “fraud on the public”.

Dick Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the House of Lords, also went further in arguing for a second referendum at the end of the negotiating process. He highlighted the historic support of David Davis, the Brexit secretary, for what he used to call a “decision referendum”.