A Progressive Labour Party motion of censure against Speaker of the House Randy Horton has been defeated along party lines by 17 votes to 15. The vote came at 1am.

The debate laid bare long-simmering divisions of Parliament, including charges of favouritism toward the Government by Mr Horton, and suggestions of evidence to support collusion between the two.

The move, brought by Shadow Attorney-General Michael Scott, can be traced back to Mr Horton’s handling of an immigration debate back in March, which ended with Deputy Opposition Leader David Burt being ejected from the chamber — and a walkout by the PLP.

Mr Scott quoted from The Royal Gazette of March 17 in which Mr Horton admitted that “with reflection and the benefit of hindsight” he should not have hurried the motion that prompted Mr Burt’s objections.

That motion on March 13 had been brought by PLP MP Walton Brown, proposing to create a joint select committee to review immigration policy.

Amendments by Attorney-General Trevor Moniz were about to be voted on without debate when Mr Burt stood insistently to make a point of order.

What occurred next brought “shock” to the House, Mr Scott said this evening, saying: “An answer needs to be provided.”

He accused Mr Horton of systematic mismanagement, telling MPs that the charge against Mr Horton of bringing the Parliament into disrepute extended to numerous other issues that have roiled the House.

Record levels of antagonism between the Opposition and the governing One Bermuda Alliance, observed by Tourism Minister Shawn Crockwell, could be traced to Mr Horton’s “mismanagement” of cases such as Jetgate that the PLP sought to pursue in the House, Mr Scott told MPs.

Mr Scott was steered away from references to recent allegations made against sitting ministers of the Government, and told to confine the debate to matters contained in his motion.

“We have been watching this movie unfold, as we are bound to, as is unavoidable — we have watched the motion, the mannerisms, the tone set by the Speaker, his use of the gavel against Members of the Opposition,” Mr Scott said, accusing the Speaker of appearing to have a “cosy” relationship with Premier Michael Dunkley and Mr Moniz.

He added: “This kind of speculation about the Speaker and his independence is part of my complaint about Parliament being brought into disrepute.”

Mr Moniz rose next, acknowledging the consternation that erupted on the night in question, and said that tempers had worn thin throughout the debate.

Calling Mr Horton’s method as Speaker comparatively soft, Mr Moniz said under the previous Speaker, Stanley Lowe, he had been told to leave the House and had not been allowed to speak upon returning until he apologised.

“At base, it’s a family spat among colleagues here in the House,” he said. “We do not see any substance to the allegation that the Speaker has brought the House into disrepute. It was a very small matter. The members got very upset.”

Mr Moniz also questioned whether Mr Burt had been ejected, suggesting he had left of his own volition. He said the OBA believed the Opposition’s behaviour had been the issue of the evening, and suggested they were using it as “leverage”.

Telling the House the Speaker was a personal friend, Mr Brown rose next, calling it “a very sad day”.

Mr Brown said that over the past 2½ years he had noticed “a trend whereby motions from the Opposition were altered in such a fundamental way that they effectively turned around the intent of the original motion”.

“I hold to my position that such amendments should not be allowed under our standing orders,” he said.

Mr Brown said he had learnt that the Speaker had gone to Government House on the day after the upset in the House, questioning what its purpose and saying Government ministers also went there the same day.

Mr Brown said that he had been present, with Opposition Whip Lovitta Foggo, when Opposition Leader Marc Bean had later met with the Speaker in his chambers, telling Mr Horton he had information that was “gravely disconcerting” and calling on the Speaker to resign. Mr Brown said he had been surprised to later hear that Mr Horton had accused Mr Bean of blackmail, which also caused him concern.

Grant Gibbons, Minister of Economic Development, said the motion was politically motivated and not a good use of the House’s time. Calling Mr Horton a patient Speaker, Dr Gibbons and that behaviour in the House had “dropped to a new low” and told the Opposition to “suck it up” when they could not get their own way.

Dr Gibbons was followed by PLP MP Jamahl Simmons who told the House the Speaker’s error was either a result of incompetence “or something else”, questioning why the OBA were “so protective of the Speaker”.

Zane DeSilva, the Shadow Minister of Tourism, told the House Mr Horton made the blackmail claim because Mr Bean threatened to reveal that he had accepted a payment of $45,000 that had come from Nathan Landow.

Shawn Crockwell, Minister of Tourism said that there had been Opposition “animus” against Mr Horton since he became Speaker because as a PLP member it affected the numerical balance of the House. He said he backed Mr Horton and would vote against the motion.