Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow, Matthew Weaver, Jessica Elgot and Kevin Rawlinson

May wins 'meaningful vote' victory after lead rebel Grieve accepts compromise - as it happened

MPs in the chamber during PMQs.
MPs in the chamber during PMQs. Photograph: PA

Evening summary

We’re going to close our live coverage for the evening. Thanks for reading. Here’s a recap of the afternoon summary put together by my colleague, Jessica Elgot:

  • The attempt to secure a “meaningful vote” that could have potentially given MPs the power to stop Britain leaving the EU without a deal has been defeated. The final obstacle to the EU withdrawal bill was removed as MPs voted 303 to 319 against an amendment tabled by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve – before he accepted government reassurances about its respect for the power of MPs to hold it to account.
  • Grieve said a compromise was the best way to make progress.

We’ve managed to reach a compromise without breaking the government – and I think some people don’t realise we were getting quite close to that. I completely respect the view of my colleagues who disagree, but if we can compromise we can achieve more.

  • At least six Tory rebels – Ken Clarke, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen, Antoinette Sandbach and Philip Lee, who resigned last week to vote against the government – held out against the compromise that Labour MPs dismissed as meaningless.
  • The compromise was reached as David Davis, the Brexit secretary, tabled a written statement recognising the authority of MPs to hold the government to account, and saying that it would be for the Speaker to decide at the time whether any government motion could be amended. The government proposal would have ruled out amendment altogether.
  • Labour protested that the concession was meaningless, and other Tory rebels were unconvinced. Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said:

This is a disappointing result and comes after Theresa May is forced once again to try to buy off her own MPs at the eleventh hour.

  • The tight vote meant MPs came through the voting lobbies in wheelchairs, and at least two heavily pregnant. The scenes have caused many to call for reform of voting procedures.
  • Separately, the government has apologised to relatives of hospital patients who died as a result of being given life-shortening opioid drugs without medical justification and said criminal charges could follow.

You can read the full story on today’s Brexit developments here:

Sky News’ senior political correspondent, Beth Rigby, has this on the reaction from pro-Brexit Tory backbenchers:

The indications had been that Labour were bitterly disappointed to lose a vote they thought they had a good chance of winning when Dominic Grieve withdrew his support. The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, is explicit:

A Labour source said they expected no further “ping pong” between the Lords and the Commons when the bill returns to the upper house tonight. They expect proceedings to be wrapped up by 8pm, probably without a vote.

The EU Withdrawal bill will return to the House of Lords tonight

The Lords *will* consider the EU Withdrawal bill again tonight, but by convention they are unlikely to send it back to the Commons again.

It will mean the bill has passed its final hurdle before receiving Royal Assent.

Afternoon summary

  • The attempt to secure a “meaningful vote” that could have potentially given MPs the power to stop Britain leaving the EU without a deal has been defeated. The final obstacle to the EU withdrawal bill was removed as MPs voted 303 to 319 against an amendment tabled by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve – before he accepted government reassurances about its respect for the power of MPs to hold it to account.
  • Grieve said a compromise was the best way to make progress.

We’ve managed to reach a compromise without breaking the government – and I think some people don’t realise we were getting quite close to that. I completely respect the view of my colleagues who disagree, but if we can compromise we can achieve more.

  • At least six Tory rebels – Ken Clarke, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen, Antoinette Sandbach and Philip Lee, who resigned last week to vote against the government – held out against the compromise that Labour MPs dismissed as meaningless.
  • The compromise was reached as David Davis, the Brexit secretary, tabled a written statement recognising the authority of MPs to hold the government to account, and saying that it would be for the Speaker to decide at the time whether any government motion could be amended. The government proposal would have ruled out amendment altogether.
  • Labour protested that the concession was meaningless, and other Tory rebels were unconvinced. Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said:

This is a disappointing result and comes after Theresa May is forced once again to try to buy off her own MPs at the eleventh hour.

  • The tight vote meant MPs came through the voting lobbies in wheelchairs, and at least two heavily pregnant. The scenes have caused many to call for reform of voting procedures.
  • Separately, the government has apologised to relatives of hospital patients who died as a result of being given life-shortening opioid drugs without medical justification and said criminal charges could follow.

That’s all from me, but my colleague Kevin Rawlinson is taking over this evening.

There was some quite heavy briefing this morning that Labour Eurosceptics and Labour MPs with leave-leaning seats could be the ones to deliver the government victory tonight, by rebelling against their party and voting against the amendment.

Labour whips say they are pleased tonight that only four Labour MPs did so, all of them long-standing Brexiters. I’m told Denis Skinner, a fervent Eurosceptic but a long-standing friend and ally of Jeremy Corbyn, helped carry many waverers over the line.

But Labour are clearly frustrated that a win was possible but Grieve’s concession meant it was denied.

“Tory MPs had a chance to deliver a truly meaningful vote,” a source said. “Labour MPs remained united - including some being taken through the voting lobbies in wheelchairs - but the so-called Tory rebels lost the courage of their convictions and gave licence for a no deal Brexit.”

Updated

There were some unedifying scenes in the Commons today as some sick and some heavily pregnant MPs had to go through the lobbies. My colleague Peter Walker has these details.

One of the effects of both the vote and the decision of the government to not allow MPs’ votes to be counted merely by their presence in parliament saw curious scenes in the corridor adjoining the lobby outside the Commons.

Labour MP Naz Shah was taken through in a wheelchair – she has been in hospital with severe back pain – while Laura Pidcock, her heavily-pregnant colleague, walked out from the vote and was helped away in another wheelchair.

Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem deputy leader, who is two days past her birth due date, managed the walk unaided.

The complications come from the fact that while MPs can be “paired” – if they are absent an opposing MP will also not vote – there is not as yet a system for proxy votes, something the Labour MP Harriet Harman has been campaigning for.

There is quite a bit of anger about this from pundits and MPs.

Updated

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says she thinks the government should be worried by how tight the vote was, even after the compromise was struck with Grieve.

Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer has reacted to the result. There is clearly a lot of frustration on the Labour benches that a win against the government was possible.

This is a disappointing result and comes after Theresa May is forced once again to try to buy off her own MPs at the eleventh hour.

Labour has long argued that Parliament should have a proper role in the Brexit negotiations and a meaningful vote on the terms upon which we leave the European Union. We will continue to make that argument and press our case at every opportunity.

Keir Starmer, shadow secretary for exiting the European Union
Keir Starmer, shadow secretary for exiting the European Union Photograph: Mark Thomas/REX/Shutterstock

Leading Tory Brexiter John Redwood said he was “very satisfied” with the result. “I never rashly doubted we would win, as otherwise it would frustrate the will of the British people,” he said.

Asked why the Tory rebels in both houses pushed the issue so long he said: “You’ll have to ask them. But I do think the Lords made a big mistake.”

It is a cruel irony that many of those making the amendments are of the generation of politicians who gave away so many powers to Brussels. And now it seems their main aim is to stop us from getting back those powers.

Six Tory rebels vote in favour of the amendment

Dominic Grieve voted against his own amendment, but six Tories voted in favour, including Philip Lee, the former justice minister who resigned in protest of the government’s Brexit strategy.

The six rebels were:

  • Heidi Allen
  • Ken Clarke
  • Philip Lee
  • Antoinette Sandbach
  • Anna Soubry
  • Sarah Wollaston

Missing are several MPs who have been outspoken on Brexit, including Nicky Morgan, Stephen Hammond, Bob Neill and Jonathan Djanogly.

Labour whips will be pleased that they have limited their rebels to just four.

  • Frank Field
  • Kate Hoey
  • John Mann
  • Graham Stringer

There may be some significant abstentions too, which we’ll get shortly.

Updated

Dominic Grieve has spoken to my colleague Peter Walker after the result of the vote. He says he believes reaching a compromise was the right solution, even if some of his allies disagreed.

We’ve managed to reach a compromise without breaking the government - and I think some people don’t realise we were getting quite close to that.

I completely respect the view of my colleagues who disagree, but if we can compromise we can achieve more.

Conservative parliamentarian Dominic Grieve speaking during a debate on the European Union Withdrawal Bill
Conservative parliamentarian Dominic Grieve speaking during a debate on the European Union Withdrawal Bill Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

Government defeats 'Grieve 2' amendment 319 votes to 303

The Lords amendment, drafted by Dominic Grieve, is defeated, after that last minute concession.

The government won by 16 votes - it will be interesting when we get the final stats about which Tory rebels rebelled, and which Labour MPs joined them.

Updated

Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake has seized on the ‘Grand Old Duke of York’ nickname.

Just like the Grand Old Duke of York, Grieve has marched his troops to the top of the hill only to get cold feet and retreat with his tail between his legs.

Despite the clear calamity that May and Davis are making of Brexit, the so-called Tory rebels have lost their bottle and caved into yet another pathetic government compromise that isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

There are potentially far more significant battles to come on a raft of bills, including the trade bill and customs bill, where many Tory MPs have put their names to amendments on a future customs union. But the “meaningful vote” is probably the least controversial issue so it does not bode well for the success of those amendments.

It seems like Labour MPs were forced to make it into Parliament from their sick beds, as was raised in the chamber in a point of order earlier. This from the Times’ Sam Coates.

MPs are now voting on the 'meaningful vote' amendment

We expect the result in a few minutes. The government is now expected to win comfortably.

Just before the vote, the Labour MP George Howarth joked in the final speech in the Commons that Dominic Grieve is “in danger of becoming the Grand Old Duke of York.”

ITV’s Robert Peston has an explanation of sorts from one of the Tory would-be rebels. In essence, they believe there will always be a way to force a vote.

The EU Withdrawal bill will need to go back to the Lords one final time, but we don’t expect the Lords to send it back again, meaning the legislation will finally pass. It may be as early as tonight.

Updated

Anna Soubry is speaking now in the debate. She jokes she has a throat infection because the editor of the Daily Mail has a tiny doll in her image and is “sticking pins in its throat.”

She says she agrees with Antoinette Sandbach’s arguments, calling her “a remarkably brave woman.”

  • Anna Soubry says she will vote for the amendment\

She says that she is convinced the promise needs to be in statute. She says the 48% who voted to remain “have been silenced and abused.”

Tory veteran Ken Clarke, the most dogged of the Tory rebels, said that he is disappointed with the lack of time for debate and says it is obvious that the government wants to deny Parliament a say where it can, shown by the legal fight needed to get a vote on Article 50.

Clarke said he believed the government could be defeated. He jokes he was not invited to negotiations with the prime minister, “I don’t blame the chief whip for that... I think he knew I would take a rather strong line.”

He says that the government is going back on an agreement brokered last week, in favour of a “convoluted deal” which he says will spark a new row about the Speaker’s powers.

Updated

Jacob Rees-Mogg is on his feet in the chamber now. He says the House still retains its constitutional power.

The powers and the authority and the rights of this House remain intact and that is not dependent on whether a meaningful vote is amendable or unamendable.

He says the legislation “will ensure the government can pursue its objectives... that is very important.”

Rees-Mogg pays tribute to the chief whip, Julian Smith, who is sitting in the chamber, he says he has been tactful in his discussions and says he has brokered a compromise to maintain the integrity of the House and keep most of his colleagues onside.

It sends the prime minister to the negotiating table, and the secretary of state, with a united House of Commons behind them.

Tory MP Antoinette Sandbach, a close ally of Grieve’s and one of the rebel MPs who voted against the government in December is speaking now. She has a quiver in her voice.

She says her constituents were under no illusions about her concerns about a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal when they re-elected her.

Sandbach says she often accused of wanting to tie the government’s hands. “Nothing can be further from the truth.”

She says that the amendment concerns steps that would be taken when negotiations have broken down. She says she strongly believes negotiations will succeed.

Not to have a process in place should negotiations collapse would be irresponsible. And what is more, this amendment will ensure that when the PM sits down to negotiate, she does so with the full backing of parliament. Far from binding the prime minister, it strengthens her hand.

Sandbach says the amendment “delivers on a commitment to take back control.”

  • Sandbach suggests she will back the amendment, despite Grieve’s concession

Updated

Theresa May has just arrived in the Commons. Reporters who are in the chamber says she is looking happy and relaxed. At the vote last week, she was hastily summoning rebels to her private Commons office to offer a compromise.

Anti Brexit protesters demonstrate outside the British Parliament in central London
Anti Brexit protesters demonstrate outside the British Parliament in central London Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Here’s the snap reaction to Dominic Grieve’s concession from MPs and the commentariat.

This is the withering verdict from Labour MP Caroline Flint. Grieve is moving his amendment anyway to allow MPs to express their view, though he will not support it.

The Spectator’s James Forsyth says the deal means the day is delayed (yet again) when May will have to face down one wing of her party.

That’s a view shared by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg

Who has won? The general consensus is that the government has given not much away, but Grieve has got enough to save some face. Here’s the Sun’s Tom Newton-Dunn.

The Telegraph’s Gordon Rayner points out that the decision on the final motion will now be in the hands of the Speaker. Bercow has apparently told friends one of the reasons he wants to extend his time as Speaker is to see through Brexit.

Labour MP Angela Eagle says his power is still constrained.

May on course for 'meaningful vote' victory as lead rebel Dominic Grieve accepts government compromise

Grieve is now talking about the Davis compromise statement (see 1.53pm), which he says will be tabled as written ministerial statement tomorrow.

He says this confirms that it will be up to the speaker to decide whether a motion can be amended.

And he reads out the final paragraph, saying “as is the convention”, the Commons can hold debates and votes.

Labour’s Chris Bryant intervenes. He says in recent years the government has often ignored Commons votes. The only thing with legislative effect is legislation. That is why there must be a meaningful vote.

Grieve says the government could ignore an amendment as voted on under the Lords amendment. That could be not enforced in law, he says. It would have to be enforced by the Commons itself - by a confidence motion or other means.

He says he has considered what the PM has told him about her anxieties. His own judgement is that he should “accept the government’s difficulty and support it”, he says.

  • Leading Tory rebel Dominic Grieve says he accepts government’s compromise and will back government. That means Theresa May is now on course to win the vote.

Grieve says, if MPs want a vote on his amendment, he will allow one. But he will not be voting for it any more, he says.

He ends with a final point. He says there is enough “madness” around to make him wonder whether “collective sanity” has been destroyed.

And bullying is making it worse, he says. He says people are afraid of backing down in case someone says they have lost.

(I’ve got to finish now. I’m handing over to my colleague Jessica Elgot.)

Updated

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is speaking now.

He says he he wants to say “how deeply I object to the way [the House of Lords] get vilified for doing the job we have asked them to do”.

Grieve talks through the history of the various “meaningful vote” proposals. (There is a quick guide here.) He says he thought the original Lords amendment (Hailsham 1, you could call it) included a mandatory element, involving parliament giving directions to the government. That was unprecedented since the civil war, he says.

He says he negotiated an alternative last week. That fell through. He says he makes no criticism of anyone in relation to that. Sometimes negotiations fall through.

The alternative was tabled in the Lords.

Two concerns were raised, he says.

First, whether the matter would be justiciable (ie, whether someone could take the government to court for ignoring what the Act said).

Second, there was an argument that having this in legislation could make it harder for the government to get a good deal.

He says he found it hard to ignore this argument, even though, as is well know, he thinks Brexit is a big mistake.

Starmer says the Lords amendment would ensure that, if the Commons voted down the withdrawal agreement, there would be order, not chaos.

He urges MPs to vote for it.

Labour’s Ruth Smeeth asks Starmer to confirm that it is Labour’s policy that the UK will leave the EU in March next year.

Starmer says that is Labour’s position.

Starmer says the government originally said MPs should not vote on the deal. They said that would tie the hands of the government. But eventually the government agreed to one, and the sky did not fall in.

This is not frustrating the Brexit process, he says. He says this is about ensuring there is a process.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is speaking now.

He says the Lords amendment is not about blocking Brexit, or tying the hands of the government.

It is just about making sure that on the most important peacetime issue this country has considered, parliament has a voice.

He says Theresa May’s view is that, if parliament votes down the deal, “tough luck”. That does not amount to a meaningful vote.

The government is saying if, parliament votes down the deal, a minister will make a statement. “Well, I should think so.”

He says the government is saying there must be a vote on a motion in neutral terms.

He says there is an example of a motion in neutral terms on the order paper today. There will be a debate on Nato. And the motion says: “That this House has considered Nato.”

Labour’s Paul Farrelly raises a point of order. Referring to the Davis statement (see 1.53pm), he asks John Bercow what discretion he would have to rule that a motion could be amended if it were couched in neutral terms.

Bercow says he thinks this will be addressed in the debate.

Davis says ‘meaningful vote’ amendment would make no deal Brexit more likely

Davis says you cannot enter a negotiation without the right to walk away.

So the Lords amendment would undermine the UK’s position in the negotiation, he says.

He says this is the paradox:

In trying to head off no deal, you actually make no deal more likely.

  • Davis says ‘meaningful vote’ amendment would make no deal Brexit more likely.

He says this would give the EU an incentive to delay.

He says the EU has already shown inflexibility, in issues like Galileo, and again yesterday on security.

We cannot allow such an approach to become commonplace across all negotiations.

Sylvia Hermon, the independent MP for North Down, says she could not accept a no deal Brexit. That would lead to a hard border returning in Ireland.

Davis says the government will not accept the return of a hard border.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European, says the Lords amendment (“Grieve 2”), would oblige the government to table a substantive motion. He says the government rejected that. He says, if anyone did try to propose a substantive amendment in those circumstances, the government would say that what was being proposed was unacceptable.

Davis says he does not want to follow Clarke down the path of considering hypotheticals.

Davis is now talking about the “meaningful vote” amendment.

He says the government had three tests for such an amendment: it should not undermine the negotiations, it should not change the constitutional relationship between parliament and the executive, and it should accept the results of the referendum.

He sums up what the government is now offering.

If parliament rejects the deal, the government must make a statement and table a motion. If there is no deal, there must be a statement and a motion. And if by January no agreement has been passed by parliament, a motion will be brought to parliament.

Labour’s Hilary Benn asks why the government amendment says this motion must be “in neutral terms”. Under Commons standing order 24 (b), a motion that the speaker rules to be in neutral terms cannot be amended.

Davis says he will address this. He reads out standing order 24 (b).

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is opening the debate.

He says the government’s critics should not question its democratic credentials. He says parliament has been repeatedly involved in this process.

Parliament has more say over Brexit than the European parliament, he says.

MPs debate EU withdrawal bill

The debate is starting now.

John Bercow, the speaker, says he will call two amendments for a vote: Dominic Grieve’s one (see 11.24am) and one from the Lib Dem MP Tom Brake, saying the Commons “meaningful vote” could trigger another referendum on the final Brexit deal.

What the government's 'meaningful vote' compromise means - Snap analysis

By lunchtime the gap between what the government was offering and what the rebels, led by Dominic Grieve, wanted was narrow. They both accept that, if MPs have not approved the Brexit withdrawal agreement by 21 January 2019, the government must schedule a vote within five working days. (See 11.24am.) But the government was saying that motion must be “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”. A motion like that would not be amendable. But Grieve and the rebels were not happy, because, in those circumstances, they wanted MPs to be able to table an amendment saying something like: “This House now requires the government to return to Brussels to try again/negotiate EEA membership/or whatever.”

The government has now issued a statement (see 1.53pm) saying that, actually, it will be up to the speaker at the time to decide if said motion debated under the terms of this clause can be amended.

(It is worth reminding readers that John Bercow, the speaker, has reportedly told friends he wants to stay as speaker until next summer so he can allow such an amendment. And that is one reason why some Tory Brexiters want him out.)

The statement also says that ministers and MPs can table their own motions, implying that the Commons could have a vote anyway. This is true up to a point. But the government decides the parliamentary timetable, and, while the opposition parties get certain days for debate - when the government allows - ordinary backbenchers cannot just schedule a debate. This line is not an offer at all - just a description of the status quo (which puts most levers in the hands of the executive.)

So the final paragraph is probably pointless. But the penultimate paragraph (the one about the speaker having the discretion to allow an amendment) does sound like a concession of sorts.

However, it begs another question; if the government would be happy for this January 2019 motion to be amended, why doesn’t it just accept the Grieve amendment tabled today (see 11.24am) removing the reference to the motion being “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”?

Overall, as concessions go, it seems a bit thin. It is not clear whether the speaker would actually have the discretion under Commons rules to allow the motion to be amended.

But this does look like a concession, and it is probably the case that the government whips have concluded it is just enough to buy off some of the rebels.

We will find out in a moment, when the debate begins.

Updated

In the Commons Labour’s Ben Bradshaw has just asked a point of order about the Tories refusing to “nod through” sick MPs.

John Bercow, the speaker, says nodding through has been a long-established practice. But it is not matter for him.

Ministers offer concession in hope of averting defeat on Brexit 'meaningful vote'

This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssnberg.

John Prescott, the Labour former deputy prime minister, claims the government decision not to “nod through” sick MPs is unprecedented in his long experience.

“Nodding through” is the practice of bringing a sick MPs into the Commons in a car or even an ambulance, but not insisting they walk through the division lobby because a whip from the other side will vouchsafe that they are there.

Back to Gosport, and this is what the Crown Prosecution Service said following today’s report. A spokesman said”

We will consider the content of the report and will take any appropriate steps as required.

This is from Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt on the EU withdrawal bill.

Back to the EU withdrawal bill, and more on Labour anger about the hardline approach of the Tory whips. These are from Sky’s Lewis Goodall.

Hunt says police and CPS will now consider whether criminal charges should be brought

This is what Jeremy Hunt said in his opening statement about how the police and the Crown Prosecution Service would now consider whether there was a case for criminal charges. Hunt told MPs:

The police, working with the CPS and clinicians as necessary, will now carefully examine the new material in the report before determining their next steps and in particular whether criminal charges should now be brought.

In my own mind I am clear that any further action by the relevant criminal justice and health authorities must be thorough, transparent and independent of any organisation that may have an institutional vested interest in the outcome.

For that reason, Hampshire Constabulary will want to consider carefully whether further police investigations should be undertaken by another police force.

Back in the Commons Norman Lamb thanks Hunt for backing his judgment and setting up this inquiry. And he pays tribute to the bishop, James Jones, who was very good at building trust, he says.

Lamb says he is not as confident at Hunt is that the publication of the Baker report in 2003 would have made a big difference.

Does Hunt agree there must be a mechanism for ensuring patients’ concerns are not ignored?

Hunt suggests that, if the report had been published in 2003, Mid Staffs (which came later) might have been avoided.

This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

Turning back to the EU withdrawal bill, my colleague Heather Stewart says that, after PMQs, Downing Street was not forthcoming about the reported compromise offer in the pipeline.

And she says Labour are angry about the hardline tactics being adopted by the government whips.

Hunt is responding to Ashworth.

He says he agrees with everything Ashworth said.

He says he is constrained in what he can say about the doctor involved.

There were process issues that happened in good faith but had a terrible outcome, he says.

He says it looks as if the Baker report was left to gather dust because people thought it could not have been published while the police were investigating.

But if it had been published, transparency would have led to people acting, he says.

That shows how important transparency is.

As for whether this could happen again, he says he thinks the situation is better now. But it is not perfect, he says.

He says it is not for the government to tell the police which force should investigate.

But he says he is concerned about the police not challenging the medical staff when they closed ranks. That is something that needs to be addressed, he says.

Back in the Commons Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, says this is a shocking report.

He also pays tribute to Norman Lamb.

He quotes from James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool who led the inquiry, saying handing over an loved one to a hospital is a matter of trust. That trust was betrayed.

He asks why families who had lost loved ones had to take on such a burden.

What will the government do to ensure that the voices of families are properly heard?

He asks for an assurance that all the relevant authorities will take this further. And, if there is another police investigation, will a different force be involved?

Does Hunt think further legislation is required?

Ashworth says the families have suffered a “terrible injustice”.

He says what happened at Gosport should not overshadow the good work the NHS does. But in this case the system let people down.

Turning back to the EU withdrawal bill, Sky’s Faisal Islam has this on the apparent government concession.

John Bercow, the speaker, says some MPs whose constituents are affected by this case cannot speak because they are ministers.

Hunt says the government’s official response will be published later this year.

But he says some questions need to be answered.

For example, the Baker report into what happened from 2003 was not published for another 10 years.

And why was the practice of giving opioid drugs in this way not stopped when medical practitioners must have known it was wrong.

He asks if there was an institutional failure, based on a desire to blame events on one rogue doctor.

He says, since these events happened, there have been changes in NHS procedure that would make these events less likely.

He says families will want to know what must happen next. He says he hopes they understand the need to avoid statements that could prejudice a future case.

He says the police will consider whether criminal charges should be brought.

He says he intends to meet as many of the families as he can before the government publishes its formal response in the autumn.

He says a helpline has been set up for people who think they have a relative who has been affected. It is on the Gosport Independent Panel website.

Hunt apologises to relatives for “truly shocking” deaths at Gosport hospital

Hunt says the report out today is “truly shocking”.

He says there was a catalogue of failings.

He apologises.

Had people listened to relatives and whistleblowers, this would not have happened, he says.

  • Hunt apologises to relatives for “truly shocking” deaths at Gosport hospital.

He also pays tribute to Norman Lamb. Lamb was his junior minister, and Lamb persuaded Hunt to overturn official advice and order and inquiry.

Jeremy Hunt's statement on Gosport hospital inquiry

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, is now making a statement about the findings of the Gospital hospital inquiry.

Here is our story about the inquiry’s report.

And here is how our story starts.

More than 450 patients died and possibly 200 more had their lives shortened because of a Hampshire hospital’s practice of giving opioid drugs without medical justification, a major inquiry has found.

The independent report found that Dr Jane Barton, the GP who ran wards at Gosport War Memorial hospital, routinely overprescribed drugs for her patients in the 1990s. Consultants were aware of her actions but did not intervene.

The inquiry, led by the bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, found that 456 patients died because of the drugs. A further 200 patients may have had their lives shortened, but their records are missing.

The report says senior nurses were worried about using diamorphine – the medical name for heroin – for patients who were not in pain, administered through a syringe-driver pumping out doses that were not adjusted for the individual’s needs.

Concerns were raised as early as 1988. In 1991, a staff meeting was held that was attended by a convenor from the Royal College of Nursing.

But the nurses were warned not to take their concerns further. They had, the report says, given the hospital the opportunity to rectify the over-prescribing.

Labour’s Angela Eagle says May’s government is not increasing NHS spending as much as Labour did. Why should people be impressed by her pledge to increase spending by 3.4% a year when that is below the historic average?

May says Simon Stevens, the NHS England chief executive, has welcomed this. Unlike Labour’s money, this will go to improve patient care, she says.

Andrew Selous, a Conservative, asks May to ensure patients can always access a doctor on the NHS.

May says she wants all NHS patients to get access to the same services.

Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, says he is glad May said Trump’s immigration policy was wrong. But May should do more. Can she stand up for our values where they are under threat across the world?

May says the government stands up for the fundamental values of democracy and human rights.

Norman Lamb, the former Lib Dem health minister, says the conclusions of the Gosport hospital inquiry, which he set up, are shocking. Does May agree there needs to be a new police inquiry?

May says the events at the hospital were “tragic” and “deeply troubling”. She says the public sector often closes ranks. She pays tribute to Lamb for setting up the inquiry. She is sorry it took the relatives so long to get an answer. This shows why the government is right to put so much focus on patient safety.

More on the EU withdrawal bill latest from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader at Westminster, says Michel Barnier’s speech yesterday implied the EU would erect barriers after Brexit. It would be a boon for terrorists, he says.

May says the future security partnership she wants after Brexit would help both sides. She recognises the importance of the instruments involved.

Sir Mike Penning, a Conservative, welcomes yesterday’s decision to allow Alfie Dingley’s family to get cannabis oil.

May says the government has ordered a review. It wants to ensure this process does not take a long time.

Turning back to the EU withdrawal bill for a moment, this is from the Times’ Sam Coates.

Labour’s Lisa Nandy says rail passengers in the north of England have had enough. She says she has seen emails from the Department for Transport saying officials were warned of chaos as long as two years ago. They describes some northern routes as meaningless, discuss how to handle MP and discuss propagating myths.

May says no government responds to leaked documents. She says the Department for Transport was reassured by an independent panel about the plans for the new timetable.

Nandy has tweeted some of the emails, in a thread starting here.

Bim Afolami, a Conservative, says he shares May’s strong commitment to the NHS. Can she assure him the money will lead to better patient outcomes?

May agrees. She does not want to see extra money going in and not being spend on patient care.

Here is May on the detention of child refugees in the US.

PMQs - Snap verdict

PMQs - Snap verdict: That was by no means a classic, but it was one of those PMQs that could in retrospect turn out to be more significant than you might have thought while listening to the rather under-powered ding dong. That’s not because Corbyn won on health, a Labour issue where his emotive complaints about under-funding normally have force. In fact, this wasn’t so much a PMQs about health as about financial credibility - supposedly the Conservative party’s USP for most of its history - and Corbyn clearly had the best of the argument. His questions weren’t particularly flash, but they were were pertinent and reasonable, and May didn’t even begin to answer them. Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? These are proper questions (not loaded PMQs jibes, which the PM can ignore with some justification) and May’s perfectly articulate flannel could not really hide the fact that Corbyn had a point. He is outscoring May on fiscal prudence. The Tories ought to be worried ....

Corbyn says under Labour the NHS increase would be 5% this year. And what is her offer - a promise without saying where any of it would come from, apart from phantom taxes Hammond is presumably dreaming up now. But there is a human element to this. He quotes from a letter from someone saying her daughter needed a wheelchair but could not get one from the NHS. Does May think standing still is good enough for the NHS?

May says she is putting in extra money. She quotes what Simon Stevens, the NHS chief executive said. He said the settlement would provide the NHs with the money it needed. For every £1 extra the government spends on the NHS in England, the Welsh Labour government spends just 84p.

Corbyn says May announced nothing for health or social care. It is not what the NHS needs. A&E waits are their worst ever. There are 100,000 staff vacancies, she says. She says the PM is writing IOUs just to stand still. Until this government can be straight with people where the money is coming from, why should people trust them on the NHS.

May says she can tell him why; for 43 of its 70 years, it has been under the Tories. We will now see a 10-year plan to improve services. Corbyn can talk of Labour’s plans. But Labour’s plans would bankrupt the economy. Their plan does not add up. Labour would lose control of the public finances, she says.

Corbyn says May spoke about £600m a week extra going to the NHS. That is over £30bn a year - way more than the UK’s contributions. Her figures are so dodgy they belong on the side of a bus. Why is the PM pushing her own Mickey Mouse figures?

May says Corbyn should listen to what she said. He claimed that she promised that money by 2023-24. She said more money would be spent on the NHS as a result of her decision, partly funded by the UK no longer being in the EU. The government will be contributing a bit more. Hammond will bring forward plans before the spending review. If Corbyn is so concerned about tax, why did Labour oppose lifting the personal allowance.

Corbyn says last night May emailed Tory members saying the money from the EU would go to the NHS. But the government’s own watchdog says there will be no extra money until at least 2023. If growth does not meet expectations, will there be extra borrowing, or higher mystery taxes.

May says the balanced approach she has taken the economy have given her the space to act. The Conservatives believe in keeping taxes low, she says. Let’s look at what Labour offered at the election. It promised 2.2% growth for the NHS, saying that would make it the envy of the world. She chose not to listen. She is putting 3.4% in.

Corbyn says he is pleased May is reading his speeches. He said EU money should be ringfenced for certain uses. He goes back to taxes. Last year May says firms could not plan on the basis of unspecified taxes. Which taxes are going up and for who?

May says Philip Hammond will set that out before the spending review. She says she is glad Labour has confirmed there will be money coming back from the EU.

Jeremy Corbyn pays tribute to his “friend”, the Finsbury Park imam.

He also pays tribute to the contribution of the Windrush generation, and he says he hopes May has put the “hostile environment” policy behind her.

Today is world refugee day, he says. All political leaders have a duty to aid refugees.

He says May said extra money for the NHS would come from Brexit, economic growth and taxes. There will be no Brexit dividend for some years, and economic growth is very slow. So which taxes are going up?

May says she was struck when she visited the Finsbury Park mosque by the community work done there.

On the NHS, she says she has set out a long-term plan. It will secure the future for the NHS, and as part of the five-year settlement there will be money from the EU. She says various shadow ministers said the Brexit dividend did not exist. But she quotes another frontbencher say Labour would use money saved from Brexit to invest in public services. That was Corbyn, she says.

Simon Hoare, the Tory MP for Dorset North, says Dorset is home to the Jurassic Coast, but is not home to dinosaurs. Will May confirm that the government will ban upskirting?

May says upskirting is a hideous invasion of privacy. The government will introduce a bill banning it. And the worst offenders will be added to the sex offenders’ list.

Labour’s Alan Whitehead says, after the UK signed up to agreements at the Paris climate change summit, will she sign up to new targets for 2050?

May says the government is committed to the Paris accord. The government remains committed to its targets, she says.

Theresa May says yesterday was the first anniversay of the Finsbury Park attack. Today the imam from the mosque is in the Commons, she says.

She says Friday is the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush. The government has announced an annual Windrush day to celebrate the diversity of the UK, she says.

This is from the Times’ Patrick Kidd.

This is from the FT’s George Parker.

PMQs

PMQs is about to start.

Here is an extract from today’s Times story (pawyall) about the vote.

Tory whips are said to have “given up” persuading up to a dozen of their own MPs not to vote in favour of an amendment that would give parliament a decisive say on what happens in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Instead they are concentrating their efforts on encouraging Labour MPs in Leave-voting areas to defy their own whip and vote with the government.

One Labour source claimed that MPs were being promised that the Tories would “go easy” in future elections on those who supported them.

Bloomberg’s Rob Hutton has some good advice for those said to be on the receiving end of such entreaties.

Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s representative on Brexit, has been undertaking the first of two sessions at the Commons today – a marathon grilling by the Brexit select committee, which is still going on, almost two-and-half hours on.

Here’s a few things he has said so far. Asked by Tory MP John Whittingdale if Brexit would allow the EU to integrate more quickly without the UK as a drag, Verhofstadt said the process had been a failure for the block and could accelerate reform:

I look to the Brexit decision as a failure of the European union. If an important country like the UK is breaking away from the European Union, it’s difficult to say, oh, it’s a success, fantastic… It has opened our eyes in the European Union and it has has speeded up the whole thinking about reform.

He predicted it would take the entire transition period to negotiate a final political deal:

I think it shall be necessary to use the whole transition period to detail this political declaration … To detail an agreement in which we will have close trade and economic relations, cooperation on internal security, cooperation on external security, and then a whole lot of diplomatic cooperation – for that we will need more time than three or four months. But that’s not a problem. That’s the reason why there’s a will from both sides to have a transition.

Asked by Tory MP Stephen Crabb about whether the EU was refusing to compromise in negotiations, Verhofstadt said the UK should instead be more flexible over its red lines:

You have to make a difference in politics between hope and what is possible …. What is not possible is that you say, we are out of the European Union but we stay a member of Europol, we stay a member of the European arrest warrant, or even go further than you do today.

Today Britain has a number of opt-outs in these policies where you don’t participate. And now what the UK government is requesting is to participate in policies where in the past it has never opted. And then I say: Sorry, that is not possible. We need to find a practical arrangement.

How MPs voted previously on the Brexit 'meaningful vote'

The Commons has held two previous votes on the “meaningful vote” issue.

On Tuesday last week, as MPs were first voting on Lords amendments to the EU withdrawal bill, the government won a vote on this by voted by 324 votes to 298 - a majority of 26. But that was only because Theresa May had bought off Tory rebels at the last moment by promising them a compromise. (Dominic Grieve subsequently thought he had negotiated “Grieve 2” as the compromise - see 11.24am - but the government refused to accept it at the last minute after David Davis objected.)

The full division list for that vote is here.

On that vote two Conservatives voted against the government: Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. But five Labour MPs rebelled against their whip and voted with the government: Ronnie Campbell, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, John Mann and Graham Stringer.

There was also a vote in December last year, when MPs were originally discussing the bill, which saw the government defeated on “Grieve 1” - his original “meaningful vote” amendment. The government was defeated by 309 votes to 305 - a majority of 4.

On that occasion 12 Tories rebelled and voted against the government: Heidi Allen, Ken Clarke, Jonathan Djanogly, Dominic Grieve, Stephen Hammond, Sir Oliver Heald, Nicky Morgan, Robert Neill, Antointette Sandbach, Anna Soubry, John Stevenson, and Sarah Wollaston.

And two Labour MPs rebelled against their whip and voted with the government: Frank Field and Kate Hoey.

If you want an explanation as to what the various “meaningful vote” proposals have involved (there have been several), there is one here.

Sam Gyimah, the universities minister, has made the Evening Standard splash by condemning President Trump’s decision to separate immigrant children from their parents.

The story is based on this tweet.

Procedural technicality alert. The government tabled the amendments to the EU withdrawal bill in such a way as to avoid a straight yes/no vote on the “meaningful vote” amendment passed by the House of Lords on Monday. That amendment was what Viscount Hailsham called “Grieve 2” - the amendment that Dominic Grieve thought he had agreed with the government last week, until it got nixed by David Davis, the Brexit secretary, at the last minute.

The text of that amendment (“Grieve 2”) is here (pdf).

The government is basically accepting this, with one key change. “Grieve 2” says, if MPs have not approved the Brexit withdrawal agreement by 21 January 2019, the government must schedule a vote within working days. The change, set out in the government amendment (see below), says that motion must be “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”. That means it cannot be amended, by Jeremy Corbyn or Dominic Grieve or whoever, to include a line saying what the government should do next.

The government is proposing a yes/no vote on “Grieve 2”. That means the opposition, and the Tory rebels, would have to vote not just against the key change, but against the whole thing.

As Labour whips point out, Grieve has tabled a manuscript amendment (a last-minute amendment) taking out the Davis key changes; in other words, this would allow MPs a yes/no vote on “Grieve 2”.

Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Matthew Weaver. I was held up this morning for domestic reasons.

After PMQs Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, will be making a statement about the Gosport War Memorial hospital deaths. That mean that the debate on the EU withdrawal bill won’t start until about 2pm, with the vote coming at around 3.30pm.

Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, sounded confident that the government would win today. Talking to Sky’s All Out Politics Buckland he said:

I think our arguments are strong. I think we can persuade the Commons today. I must say the Lords have accepted all the arguments we’ve made. They have properly given back a matter that is for the Commons to decide. I very much hope that we can have finality on this issue today and then get on with the work that we need to do.

I’m optimistic about many things and I’m optimistic that today that our arguments are strong.

A note from the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, to the Parliamentary Labour party, shows the lengths the leadership are going to stress it is not trying to stop Brexit.

The language is directed at the Brexit rebels to try to get them on side. It says the voe “isn’t about stopping Brexit... isn’t about delaying Brexit or tying the hands of negotiators... not about the future of Theresa May or of this government.”

Updated

Jeremy Corbyn is trying to persuade Labour Leavers to vote against the government.

ITV’s political editor Robert Peston reckons there is a real risk that May could a lose a vote that she could have avoided.

Writing on Facebook he says: “May could have swallowed the substance of the amendment and emerged unscathed.”

The Sun’s political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, argues the vote is a dress rehearsal for the more important vote next month on the customs union amendment to the trade bill.

HuffPost UK’s Paul Waugh says rebel waverers are the ones to watch:

It’s the rebel waverers that matter most this afternoon, not your Anna Soubrys or Ken Clarkes. And although both May and Corbyn say this is about the national interest, not party interest, it’s how their MPs interpret their conflicting loyalties that will swing the decision today.

Updated

Summary

Welcome to Politics live as Theresa May faces a knife-edge Commons vote on Brexit as MPs decide on parliament’s role in Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Tory rebels reckon they could inflict a defeat on the government as the EU withdrawal bill returns to the Commons after the Lords again backed giving MPs a “meaningful” say on the final deal.

The debate is expected to start at 1pm according to Labour.

May staved off a Tory rebellion on the move last week but faces a crucial battle in the latest round of voting amid claims she failed to implement a compromise that opponents believed they were promised.

Brexiters are said to be increasingly confident of victory, but rebels are also bullish.

Phillip Lee, who resigned as a government minister in order to back a strengthened role for parliament, acknowledged there had been a concerted effort to win over would-be rebels, including the “dark arts” of persuasion in the corridors of power.

But he claimed the rebels may have the strength to defeat the prime minister - who he said he still counts as a friend - unless an eleventh-hour concession is agreed. Lee told BBC Radio 4’s Today:

We were always going to get the normal dark arts of Westminster taking place, fully expected, but my understanding is that the position taken by a number of colleagues is solid, which is why the government is still in negotiations.

Asked if there were enough rebels to defeat the government, he said:

Potentially, yes. But ... this for me personally is a position of integrity, that I think Parliament deserves to have a proper role in this process, a truly meaningful vote.

Dominic Grieve, one of the leading figures in the stand-off, said he expected negotiations to “go right to the wire”.

Tory Remainer Anna Soubry posted a lengthy statement about why she will rebel and denied being a “traitor”.

The prime minister’s spokesman said the government did not intend to concede ground.

Andrew Sparrow has been delayed coming to work today but should be here within an hour.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
No, autistic people are not ‘mind blind’ – here’s why
For four decades, a controversial idea has shaped how autism is understood by researchers, healthcare professionals and the public: the claim that autistic people are “mind blind”. The phrase suggests an inability to grasp what others think or feel. It is simple, memorable – and wrong.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Demna brings sexy back in effort to reinvigorate Gucci
Designer’s first catwalk for the brand in Milan flirts with bad taste with short, tight dresses and a diamante G-string
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Neil Sedaka death: Legendary singer-songwriter behind ‘(Is This the Way to) Amarillo’ was 86
Sedaka was the songwriter behind a string of popular hits including ‘Breaking Up Is Hard to Do’ and ‘Love Will Keep Us Together’
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
A 'Mansion Tax' in Los Angeles Is Worsening the City's Housing Crisis
A transfer tax on high-value real estate transactions is reducing the number of homes on the market and limiting new construction.
Reason
Reason
Pink ‘has moved to New York and is in running to take over Kelly Clarkson’s talk show’
After being spotted in the Big Apple, singer Pink is said to have moved to New York and is said to be in the running to take over Kelly Clarkson’s NBC talk show.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Sorry, ZeLink shippers, Zelda actor still thinks the 40-year-old pairing is better left "ambiguous": "If there are romantic undertones, it's left in an unrequited state"
"I have all sorts of personal theories," she says
GamesRadar
GamesRadar
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play