This is a Bill being fast-tracked in the House of Commons, with all its substantive stages taken in a single sitting on one day. It is expected to also be fast-tracked in the House of Lords.
The Bill was debated on 3 April 2019 through its Second Reading (Hansard: http://bit.ly/2IcSO1h )
and Committee Stage (Hansard: http://bit.ly/2Un8e9R )
Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill started at 5:54 pm and was put to a vote at 7:00 pm after 1 hour 6 minutes of debate
The voting results were
Ayes: 315 Noes: 310
and the Bill passed (by a majority of 5), its second reading, after 1 hour 6 minutes of debate.
14 “Remain” Tory rebels voted in favour of passing the second reading.
Bebb, Guto
Brine, Steve
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Harrington, Richard
Lee, Dr Phillip
Letwin, rh Sir Oliver
Morgan, rh Nicky
Sandbach, Antoinette
Spelman, rh Dame Caroline
Vaizey, rh Mr Edward
The Committee Stage of the Bill began immediately following the result of the vote on the Second Reading.
The debate started at around 7:20 pm
There appeared to be some confusion over the proposed Amendments raised at this Stage. However, here is a complete list of the amendments:
Selected amendments:
They are amendment 13, amendment 20, amendment 21, Government amendment 22, amendment 1, clause 1 stand part, amendment 14, amendment 6, clause 2 stand part, new clause 4, new clause 5, new clause 7 and Government new clause 13.
Votes on amendments to the Bill started at 9:54 pm after 2 hours 34 minutes of debate.
To cut a long story short, it is difficult for me to determine exactly what was being voted on, so skipping to the end after more than an hour voting on amendments to the Bill …
Voting took place at 11:09 pm with the result
Ayes: 313 Noes: 312
14 “Remain” Tory rebels voted in favour of passing the Third reading.
Bebb, Guto
Brine, Steve
Burt, rh Alistair
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Harrington, Richard
Lee, Dr Phillip
Letwin, rh Sir Oliver
Sandbach, Antoinette
Spelman, rh Dame Caroline
Vaizey, rh Mr Edward
The Bill, as amended, passed the Third Reading by a majority of 1.
The Bill has been sent to the House of Lords.
Here is a copy of the Bill as passed to the House of Lords
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0172/18172.pdf
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill (copy pdf)
Details of all stages of the Bill can be found at
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawalno5.html
The Bill was considered by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution and their report is available at
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldconst/339/33903.htm
The document presents the following conclusions for consideration by members of the House of Lords during their deliberations.
6.The House may wish to consider the implications of the Bill in the following respects:
A motion passed under the terms of the Bill would place a duty on the Prime Minister to “seek an extension” to the Article 50 period, while leaving discretion as to how it should be sought. Such discretion is inevitable as there is a limit to the extent to which it is feasible for legislation to provide direction in matters of this nature.
The Bill requires the Prime Minister to move a motion on the day after it receives Royal Assent. It does not, however, specify the time during which the Prime Minister would be required to act on the motion, should it be passed by the House of Commons.
In the event that a counterproposal is made by the European Council, the Bill does not require the Prime Minister to move a motion containing the date of that counterproposal. If the Prime Minister did move a motion containing that date, it would be open to the House of Commons to amend the motion so that it specified a different date. The provisions of the Bill could be applied repeatedly in the event that departure dates agreed by the House of Commons in subsequent motions did not align with the date or dates offered by the European Council.
The Bill does not provide for how any counterproposal from the European Council should be treated in the event that conditions are attached to it.
If the European Council refuses to offer an extension, or there is otherwise a failure to reach agreement on an extension, the Bill has no further effect and the UK would leave the European Union on 12 April by default.
As the result of a Government amendment in the House of Commons, the process by which a statutory instrument to alter ‘exit day’ in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is changed from the affirmative to the negative procedure. The justification for this change, accepted by the Bill’s sponsor and the Official Opposition, was that it might be necessary to legislate as a matter of urgency to change the date of exit and that the requirement to get the approval of both Houses to an affirmative instrument could cause undesirable delay, risking a situation in which exit day in domestic law was not aligned with the exit day agreed under EU law.
A House of Lords Library Briefing covers the House of Commons stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, prepared for Members of the House of Lords in the event that the bill is considered in the House of Lords on 4 April 2019.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0042
