Rishi Sunak has been accused of trying to exert “macho power” by making the House of Lords work into the early hours debating his plans to plans to tackle small boat crossings.
There was frustration and anger as detailed debate on the Illegal Migration Bill started at 3pm on Wednesday were eventually adjourned shortly before dawn at 4.16am on Thursday.
Tweeting during the debate shortly after midnight, Lib Dem peer Sarah Ludford said: “The government is exerting macho power by forcing us to debate crucial issues about their plans for arbitrary indefinite detention into the early hours of the morning.
“I had better restrain what I say about them, it is unprintable.
“Opposition peers are being punished for raising crucial constitutional issues of the rule of law, whether a politician - the home secretary - should be able to detain a person indefinitely unhindered by any judicial power to stop her.
She added: “No doubt they thought that forcing (largely elderly) opposition peers to sit till 04.25 would bully us out of raising objections to their law-breaking, authoritarian Illegal Migration Bill and break our spirit. It didn’t and it won’t.”
Labour former minister Lord Bach said it was “disgraceful” that “really important and serious matters” were being debated so late.
“I think it’s so disappointing that this Bill is now being dealt with in this way at this hour of the morning.”
It is rare for the Lords, which would normally sit until about 10pm, to carry on so late.
The last time it did so was during the stormy votes over Brexit.
The move will be seen as a signal ofSunak’s determination to push through the flagship legislation, which has sparked fierce opposition from peers.
It sets the scene for an extended future tussle between the unelected chamber and government during so-called parliamentary ping-pong, when legislation moves between the Lords and Commons.
The Bill, which has already been passed by the Commons, aims to ensure those who arrive in the UK without permission will be detained and promptly deported, either to their home country or a third country such as Rwanda.
Critics argue the draft legislation breaks international law and threatens modern slavery protections.