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

Brexit defeat for Theresa May as MPs back curbing government powers – as it happened

Live from the House of Commons

Summary

  • Theresa May’s government has suffered a humiliating defeat in the House of Commons after MPs backed an amendment to her flagship Brexit bill, limiting the powers it will grant to ministers. As Heather Stewart and Peter Walker report, as the prime minister prepares to travel to Brussels to meet her fellow EU leaders on Thursday, the former attorney general Dominic Grieve and 11 other Tories backed his amendment 7. MPs waved their order papers as the result of the crucial vote was read out, revealing that the government had been defeated by 309 votes to 305. A series of last-minute concessions by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, and justice minister Dominic Raab, and an intensive campaign by Conservative whips, failed to win over rebels. Here is Heather and Peter’s full story.

That’s all from me for tonight.

Thanks for the comments.

There were four votes this evening. After the government defeat, the government won a vote on a Labour amendment. (See 7.33pm.)

Then an SNP amendment saying the government should “publish a strategy for seeking to ensure that reciprocal healthcare arrangements continue after the UK leaves the EU” was defeated by 315 votes to 294 - a government majority of 21.

And a Labour amendment calling for a scrutiny committee to consider secondary legislation passed under the bill was defeated by 311 votes to 292 - a government majority of 19.

Stephen Hammond has tweeted this about being sacked as a Conservative party vice chairman. (See 8.17pm.)

Here is some more reaction to the vote.

From Labour MP Yvette Cooper

This is an important moment. The House of Commons has tonight voted against the government’s attempt to concentrate power and against letting a small group of ministers take crucial decisions on the details of Brexit without Parliament having a meaningful vote.

From the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman Tom Brake

Tonight, Parliament took back control.

MPs insisted on a meaningful vote and dismissed Ministers’ eleventh hour attempts to buy off the rebels.

This is a momentous day for Parliament and a humiliating defeat for Theresa May.

From Open Britain, which is campaigning for a soft Brexit. This is from the Labour MP Chuka Umunna, an Open Britain supporter.

This is a victory for British parliamentary democracy. MPs of all parties deserve great credit.

The Commons has been absolutely clear tonight that we will not permit our country to be railroaded into a job-destroying hard Brexit, or even a no deal Brexit, without Parliament having a meaningful vote on the matter.

From Plaid Cymru’s Brexit spokesman Hywel Williams MP

MPs have shown tonight that we can hold this government to account if all MPs turn up and vote. It’s important now that all national parliaments in all four of the UK’s member countries are given a meaningful vote on Brexit, not just Westminster.

If sensible MPs from all parties turn up and vote, we can defeat the government. I expect the Labour party to learn this lesson, stop abstaining and start voting with Plaid Cymru and other sensible MPs to maintain our membership of the single market and customs inion and ensure all four countries in the UK have a say on Brexit.

The Conservative MP Michael Fabricant has also hit out at Tory MPs who rebelled.

This is from the academic Philip Cowley, an expert in Commons rebellions.

Labour sources said their own whips’ efforts to convince the Brexiteers in their own party to vote for the amendment had been crucial to the crunch vote, with negotiations going on into the final hours before the vote.

Leave-supporting MPs including Dennis Skinner, Grahame Morris, Ronnie Campbell and John Mann all voting for Grieve’s amendment in order to inflict defeat on the government. One party whip described the loss as a game-changer for the hung parliament.

“It has broken the dam,” the MP said. “It will be much, much easier to do it again. Rebelling once gives you a taste for it. The discipline has been broken and it shows actually that if you do risk it and rebel for something you believe in, you can make a difference.”

The numbers were so tight many MPs coming out of the chamber after the vote said they believed the government had won. Catching his eye across the chamber, Anna Soubry shook her head at Labour chief whip Nick Brown. As news began to filter through that the government had lost, the opposition benches cheered, clapped and waved their order papers.

The Tory Brexiter Nadine Dorries is not in forgiving mood.

Tory rebel Stephen Hammond sacked as Conservative vice chairman

Stephen Hammond, one of the Tory rebels, has been sacked as a party vice chairman, Sky’s Faisal Islam reports.

(To be honest, some of us were unaware that Hammond was a Tory vice chairman. Being a Conservative party vice chairman is a bit like being a vice president of an American bank. There are lots of them; it’s not a bit deal.)

How MPs voted on the Grieve amendment

Here are the official figures for how MPs voted on the Grieve amendment.

For the amendment

Labour: 245 MPs

SNP: 34 MPs

Conservatives: 12 MPs (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)

Lib Dems : 12 MPs

Plaid Cymru: 4 MPs

Greens: 1 MP (Caroline Lucas)

Independents: 1 MP (Sylvia Hermon)

Against the amendment

Conservatives: 293 MPs

DUP: 10 MPs

Labour: 2 MPs (Frank Field and Kate Hoey)

Raab is now speaking to BBC News. He has just described the defeat as a “minor setback”. A few minutes ago, on Sky News, he was saying it was a “significant setback”. (See 8.04pm.)

Here is the justice minister Dominic Raab on the result.

You can download the raw division lists for the first vote here.

Brexit department says it will now consider whether 'further changes are needed to bill'

The Brexit department has just issued this statement about the defeat. A spokesman said:

We are disappointed that parliament has voted for this amendment despite the strong assurances that we have set out.

We are as clear as ever that this bill, and the powers within it, are essential.

This amendment does not prevent us from preparing our statute book for exit day. We will now determine whether further changes are needed to the bill to ensure it fulfils its vital purpose.

It is not entirely clear what this means. Perhaps it means the government may be more amenable to amending the bill as it continues its passage through parliament in response to criticism. We heard a lot of complaints from Tory rebels today about the heavy-handed way their concerns were dismissed. Or “further changes” may just mean the government intends to rewrite the bill to undo the effect of tonight’s vote.

What Theresa May's Brexit defeat means

So, in practice, what does this all mean?

  • Theresa May has lost a Brexit vote in the Commons for the first time.
  • MPs voted to back the Dominic Grieve amendment by 309 votes to 305 - a majority of four.
  • The amendment will curb some of the powers the government is giving itself in the EU withdrawal bill. Specifically it means that although clause 9 of the bill gives ministers powers to implement the Brexit withdrawal agreement by order, the amendment that has been passed means they can only exercise these powers “subject to the prior enactment of a statute by parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.” See 9.07am for more.
  • Opposition MPs also claim the amendment gives parliament a “meaningful vote” on the withdrawal agreement. This is contested because ministers say parliament is already going to get a meaningful vote. But what it will mean is that ministers will not be able to use the powers in clause 9 to implement the EU withdrawal bill by order until the Commons has passed the bill allowing this. See 11.27am for detail.
  • A dozen Tory MPs rebelled, according to Labour.
  • Ministers will now be under strong pressure to drop the amendment to the bill fixing 29 March 2019 as Brexit day. It is due to be put to the vote next week, but after tonight’s defeat Downing Street may conclude that that they will lose on that one too.
  • The vote will certainly not stop Brexit - and by itself it will not necessarily have any substantial effect on the way the government implements Brexit, although May claims that it will make the withdrawal process less smooth and orderly. (See 1.19pm.) But the result shows that, on at least some issues, there is a majority in the Commons in favour MPs exerting greater say over the Brexit process than the government would like, and potentially this could create fresh problems for the government further down the line. The vote may also make the House of Lords more confident about insisting on their own changes to the bill.

Sky’s Faisal Islam says there were 12 Tory rebels.

Corbyn says defeat is 'humiliating loss of authority'

Commenting on the government defeat, Jeremy Corbyn said:

This defeat is a humiliating loss of authority for the government on the eve of the European council meeting.

Labour has made the case since the referendum for a meaningful vote in parliament on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Theresa May has resisted democratic accountability. Her refusal to listen means she will now have to accept parliament taking back control.

Government wins vote on Labour amendment by majority of 19

We have just had the result of the second vote of the night. The government has defeated Labour’s amendment 30 by 316 votes to 297 - a majority of 19.

Amendment would have removed the power the bill gives ministers in clause 9 to amend the EU withdrawal bill itself.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

The government defeated by 309 votes to 305 - a majority of 4

The government has been defeated by 309 votes to 305 - a majority of 4.

George Freeman has backed down too - despite saying less than 40 minutes ago he would vote for the amendment. (See 6.35pm.)

At least one potential Tory rebel seems to have been won over. This is from Paul Masterton, a Scottish MP who was seen as a potential supporter of the amendment - although he was not one of the 10 Tories who signed it.

Updated

This is from Labour’s Seema Malhotra.

ITV’s Robert Peston thinks the government will lose.

MPs start voting on Grieve's amendment

Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP, is winding up now.

She says Raab has not come up with a manuscript amendment. And he has not explained why there cannot be a statutory vote on the withdrawal deal. (See 11.27am for more on this point.)

Ken Clarke intervenes. He says Raab came up with some sort of amendment, but the government could come up with something better at report.

Cooper withdraws her amendment, NC3 (see 1.12pm), in favour of Grieve’s amendment.

Grieve then moves his amendment.

And MPs are now voting.

Vicky Ford, a Conservative, welcomes Raab’s announcement. She invites him to clarify it again.

Raab says what he said earlier. (See 6.47pm.)

The vote is now due within the next 10 minutes or so.

Charlie Elphicke, the Conservative who currently sits as an independent having been suspended, says he objects to clause 9. He will not support it when it is put to a vote, he says.

Grieve says latest concession is 'too late'

Dominic Grieve intervenes. He says Raab’s latest concession (see 6.47pm) is “too late”. He goes on: “I’m sorry, you cannot treat the House in this fashion.”

Updated

The Conservative Antoinette Sandbach says she is not willing to vote to give away parliamentary sovereignty. She says Dominic Raab’s assurances earlier were unconvincing.

Sandbach is one of the 10 Tories who have signed amendment 7. The full list is here, at 10.27am.

Raab promises to rewrite bill so it includes concession he announced earlier

Dominic Raab, the justice minister, intervenes.

He says he is willing to introduce an amendment to the bill at report stage inserting a clause into the bill committing the government to the promise he made earlier. He referred to the third of his three points. (See 5.43pm.)

This is what he said earlier.

We expect that the vast majority of statutory instruments enacted under clause 9 will not come into force until exit day when the withdrawal agreement comes into force. But I can give [Dominic Grieve] and the House the concrete assurance, following the timeframe set out in today’s written ministerial statement,that none of the SIs, none of the statutory instruments under clause 9, will come into effect until parliament has voted on the final deal.

  • Raab beefs up concession he announced earlier, telling MPs he will include it as a clause in the bill. He will do this via an amendment tabled at report stage. That means he has upgraded the concession from a political promise to a legislative one.

The former Tory and former Ukip MP Douglas Carswell has just used Twitter to send this message to George Freeman after his pro-amendment speech.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Sir Oliver Heald, the Conservative former solicitor general, says parliament should get a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal. On something as important as this, parliament should have a say. And the bill should reflect what the government is saying. If the government is saying these clause 9 powers will not be used to implement measures until the Commons has voted for the withdrawal deal, the bill should say that. So he is “sad” to say that he will be voting for amendment 7.

George Freeman, chair of the Conservative policy forum, says he is a supporter of the prime minister’s. And he is happy to be described as a model convert to Brexit. He says the government must make a success of it.

But he says clause 9 goes too far. It gives ministers powers that are too sweeping.

The clause was drafted before the government promised MPs a vote on the withdrawal agreement legislation, he says.

He says trust will be stretched if this is not changed.

He says Brexit is not a conspiracy against people. It should be a moment of renewal. He says ministers should have been more accommodating.

He says the government could have specified what powers they would use clause 9 for. Or they could drop clause 9. Or they could accept amendment 7, he says.

He says he has not voted against the government since he became an MP eight years, except for in his first week, in a vote on backbench debates. But he is a democrat. The government could show it is taking the Commons seriously.

He says he will vote for the amendment tonight.

George Freeman.
George Freeman. Photograph: BBC

This is from the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford.

This is from the Sun’s Steve Hawkes.

Labour’s Liz Kendall says the votes starting at 7pm will be the most important in the Commons since MPs voted to trigger article 50. All the government is offering is a take it or leave it vote, she says.

This is from MailOnline’s Tim Sculthorpe.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, is speaking now. He says he personally has his doubts about clause 9. Having a clause in a bill that allows the bill itself to be amended is going too far, he says. He says Dominic Raab’s concessions (see 5.43pm) were “generous”.

This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuessberg.

George Hollingbery is Theresa May’s parliamentary private secretary.

Labour’s Chuka Umunna is speaking now. He says amendment 7 goes to the heart of what parliament “taking back control” is all about.

And he says the Tory Brexiters have no right to lecture their colleagues about loyalty, given how often they have rebelled against their party themselves. He quotes figures for the number of times particular Tories have rebelled: David Davis, more than 90 rebellions; Liam Fox, more than 19 times; Penny Mordaunt, 5 times; Andrea Leadsom, over 7 times; John Redwood, 73 times; John Baron, 64 times; Bernard Jenkin, 95 times; and Sir Bill Cash, more than 100 times.

After Raab finished speaking, Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, who is in the chair, says she cannot impose a time limit (because it is a committee stage debate), but that the only way there will be time for all MPs who want to speak will be if they limit themselves to three minutes each.

That means there are roughly 30 MPs hoping to speak.

Dominic Raab's three concessions - Full statement

Here are the exact words that Dominic Raab, the justice minister, used earlier when he announced his three concessions to Tory rebels. (See 5.04pm.) He said:

I want to provide three very clear assurances to the House today.

First, secondary legislation passed under clause 9 will either be affirmative or considered by the committee established under the amendment tabled by [Charles Walker].

Second, the government is committed to publishing in draft such statutory instruments as far as possible as early as possible to facilitate maximum scrutiny, which is another point we discussed.

Third, we expect that the vast majority of statutory instruments enacted under clause 9 will not come into force until exit day when the withdrawal agreement comes into force. But I can give [Dominic Grieve] and the House the concrete assurance, following the timeframe set out in today’s written ministerial statement, that none of the SIs, none of the statutory instruments under clause 9, will come into effect until parliament has voted on the final deal.

And I hope this provides the important and sufficient reassurance for honourable members to withdraw these amendments.

There were a couple of errors in the earlier 5.04pm post. The second promise is about publishing legislation, not passing it. And, in his third point, Raab said new measures would not be passed under clause 9 until MPs have voted on the final deal (the yes/no vote - see 11.27am), not until the withdrawal agreement bill has been passed. I’m sorry about those.

Ken Clarke is intervening now. He says the debate started with a passionate speech from Yvette Cooper about the need for a meaningful vote. He says Raab has been going through “the foothills” of the issues in his speech. Can he say something about the case of a meaningful vote? Has he anything in his speech about that?

Raab says there will be meaningful vote. And the statutory instruments passed under clause 9 will not be implemented until after it has taken place.

Anna Soubry, the Tory pro-European, doesn’t seem impressed by Raab’s concessions. (See 5.04pm.) In an interview on BBC News, she says the problem with this process is that it is being driven by “inexperienced ministers”. She says someone like Dominic Grieve would start negotiating with a minister like Dominic Raab, only for the next meeting to be with someone like a whip. The potential rebels have been “treated like naughty schoolboys”, she says. She says that is not acceptable. She says the prime minister herself should now intervene to sort this out. And she repeats the call for clause 9 to be dropped.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg reckons the vote could end in a tie.

Charlie Elphicke, the Conservative who has had the whip suspended, asks Raab to consider dropping clause 9 entirely. If it stays, parties like the SNP will use it as a “Christmas tree” on which they till try to hand hostile amendments.

Raab says clause 9 is necessary to deliver a smooth Brexit.

Raab seeks to avert rebellion by promising new limits on use of EU withdrawal bill powers

Dominic Grieve intervenes. He raises the idea that he mentioned earlier (see 2.45pm) - that clause 9 powers could allow ministers to lay statutory instruments (ie, to pass secondary legislation) before the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill has been passed - on the understanding that those laws will not come into effect until that bill has been passed. He said he discussed this with Raab, but Raab did not take it up.

Raab says he is about to give Grieve some political assurances now. There are three, he says.

First, secondary legislation passed under clause 9 will either be affirmative, or be covered by the new sifting committee. (“Affirmative” means it has to be approved by MPs in a vote; it cannot become law by default, like secondary legislation passed under the “negative procedure”.)

Second, the government will commit to publishing legislation under clause 9 as early as possible.

Third, Raab says he can assure Grieve than none of the statutory instruments passed under clause 9 will come into effect until MPs have voted in favour of the withdrawal deal.

  • Raab seeks to avert rebellion by promising new limits on use of EU withdrawal bill powers.

This third concession is exactly what Grieve was proposing earlier.

But Grieve also said he was unhappy about ministers’ refusal to compromise earlier, and he told MPs this afternoon he would not back down now. (See 4.24pm.) He does not respond to Raab immediately.

UPDATE: I’ve corrected this post because the first draft contained two errors. I’m sorry about that. See 5.43pm, where I have now posted the full text of Raab’s statement, for details.

Dominic Raab.
Dominic Raab. Photograph: BBC

Updated

Labour’s Chuka Umunna says David Davis’s statement just says the withdrawal agreement and implementation will just be “introduced” before Brexit. Will MPs get a vote on it before Brexit? And why is the government so reluctant to contemplate using the provisions in article 50 to ask for Brexit to be delayed if necessary.

Raab says, as someone who was a Foreign Office lawyer for six years, he does not think the idea of Brexit being delayed for a period is practical.

Raab says if the UK wants a deal with Europe, it needs to be able to deliver it on time.

It is no good willing the diplomatic ends if you are not willing to support the legislative means.

Raab says clause 9 can only be used to implement the withdrawal agreement. And there are restrictions on the power, including those saying it cannot be used to levy taxes.

And the power only applies until Brexit day. So it will only last for about six months. That is shorter than the time limit applying to other powers in the bill, he says.

Yvette Cooper says in the past the Commons has been able to pass legislation in a single day. If Raab is right, why not have a simple bill at that point (after parliament has agreed the withdrawal bill) giving ministers the power they need.

Raab says that could still be too late. “It just isn’t practical,” he says.

Dominic Grieve intervenes. He says if there is going to be a withdrawal agreement and implementation bill, why not wait for that? That will give ministers the power to make secondary legislation.

Raab says there will not be enough time. Ministers will have to pass a large volume of secondary legislation before Brexit day.

That is why the powers in clause 9 are needed, he says.

Raab says clause 9 is not intended to implement major aspects of the withdrawal agreement.

It is there so that ministers can make regulations that need to be in place by the time of Brexit.

Raab rules out compromise proposal for government to drop clause 9 altogether

Raab says clause 9 will give ministers “agility”, and the ability to deliver a Brexit deal under time pressure.

He urges MPs to read David Davis’s written ministerial statement.

It is essential that clause 9 stands part of the bill, he says.

We do not know what will happen in the negotiations, he says.

  • Raab rules out compromise proposal from MPs for government to drop clause 9.

Justice minister Dominic Raab responds to debate

Dominic Raab, the justice minister, is speaking now.

If we are going to get any last-minute government concessions, they will come in his speech.

He says he expects his speech to last about an hour.

Updated

In the Commons Chris Bryant is still speaking. He says he thinks that, if the government were to start losing votes on the withdrawal deal, the government would have to go back to Brussels and demand a better deal.

Anne Main, a Conservative, asks what would happen if the government did not get a better deal. The UK could end up leaving with no deal, she says.

Bryant says that would be a danger. But he says when he was a Europe minister, if he wanted to block an EU proposal, he tried to get parliament to oppose it, because that strengthened his hand.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg and her BBC colleagues have been crunching the numbers, and they think the government is still heading for defeat.

The thinktank with the most influence over the govenrment’s Brexit policy is the Legatum Institute, which is highly regarded by ministers like Michael Gove and Liam Fox. Shanker Singham, its economic policy director, has used Twitter to criticise the idea that MPs should be able to vote to change the Brexit deal.

Chris Bryant, the Labour former Europe minister, says there is no need for clause 9 in the bill. If the government needs to give ministers powers to implement the withdrawal agreement, it can legislate for that in the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill.

He says, if ministers have powers, they will use them. The best thing to do is to take away the temptation, he says.

As it stands, the bill would give ministers the power to amend the Parliament Act, or the Representation of the People Act.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, says he does not think the bill would give ministers the power to amend the Representation of the People Act.

Bryant says other legislation giving ministers emergency powers requires them to explain why they need these powers when they exercise them. This bill doesn’t, he says. He says that is why is is suspicious of it.

Leading Tory Brexiter Rees-Mogg offers ministers escape route ahead of possible defeat

Ed Vaizey, a Conservative, is speaking now. He says clause 9 of the bill was written before the government promised MPs that the withdrawal agreement would be implemented via a withdrawal agreement and implementation bill. But now that that promise has been made, clause 9 and amendment 7 are past their sell-by date.

He says that the Oliver Letwin proposal (see 3.44pm), for ministers to withdraw clause 9 and replace it with something else if they really think some powers might be necessary, is a good one.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, another Conservative and an arch Brexiter, intervenes. He says clause 9 contains “some powers that trouble even Eurosceptics”, particularly the proposal that the bill could be “self-amending” (ie, that ministers could use powers in the EU withdrawal bill to amend the bill itself). He says Letwin’s proposal is “very attractive”.

This is significant. Tory Brexiters are now offering ministers an escape route. It is now clear that the government could drop clause 9 without being accused of Brexit betrayal.

Such a climbdown would still be embarrassing, particularly in the light of the pressure exerted on rebels up to now - but less embarrassing than a defeat.

The SNP’s Philippa Whitford says pharmaceutical companies now see the UK as a hostile market. She says one of the SNP amendments would ensure the UK continues to take part in European medical trials after Brexit.

Government loyalist Oliver Letwin suggests ministers should drop clause 9 entirely

The Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke intevenes. (I call him a Conservative because effectively that is what he is, althought technically he is an independent at the moment because he has been suspended). He asks why clause 9 needs to be in the bill at all.

Letwin says, now that the government has promised a withdrawal agreement and implementation bill, he agrees.

As a matter of fact, now that there is to be an implementation agreement bill, I don’t personally yet understand what the remaining need for clause 9 is.

But it is for the government to say whether it will drop it, or amend it.

Dominic Grieve intervenes again. He says he has spent his time being sotto voce about this. He has tried to get some reason into the government. But it did not work. He says he thinks the best option would be to ditch clause 9. But he says he tabled an amendment instead, because he thought that would be more acceptable.

Letwin says he accepts that he does not think clause 9 is necessary.

  • Letwin says it would be acceptable for the government to drop clause 9 entirely. His intervention was significant because Letwin has been a government loyalist throughout the passage of this bill and he made the comment in a speech ostensibly opposing the Grieve amendment.

A reminder: clause 9 is the part of the bill giving ministers the power to pass law by regulation implementing the withdrawal agreement.

Letwin says amendment 7 is not good law. He says it would be better if the government came back at report stage with an alternative amendment, perhaps saying that the clause 9 powers could only be used in certain circumstances.

Dominic Grieve intervenes. He says he has tried to engage with the government to get some sort of compromise, but has had no success.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, told MPs that just as they say in the EU nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, nothing should be implemented until everything is agreed.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former Cabinet Office minister, is speaking now. He says Labour want a meaningful vote that would allow the Commons to stop the UK leaving the EU if MPs did not like the withdrawal deal.

Grieve says article 50 allows for a sensible process for leaving the EU.

But some of his colleagues are determined to “mess it up”, he says. They want the UK to leave on 29 March 2019 even if there is a case for a delay.

And he says that is why he will vote against the government’s amendment 381, the one fixing 29 March 2019 as Brexit date. That is due to be debated next week, and he says he will definitely vote against it.

Grieve says he has been “left in the lurch”. Ministers have said that the ministerial statement should be enough for him. But they have not explained why.

Grieve says he is not prepared to sign clause 9 off in this form.

He says he does not want to be able to use powers that would pre-empt a statute MPs should be debating about this time next year.

Grieve says he heard one minister question informally whether the clause 9 power in the bill was still needed in the light of the government’s decision to introduce a withdrawal agreement and implementation bill. He does not name the minister.

If his amendment fails, he will vote against the whole of clause 9, he says.

He says last week he had meetings with ministers to find out why they were so keen on clause 9.

He thought one justification for clause 9 might be that it would allow ministers to pass secondary legislation without bringing it into force until the withdrawal bill legislation had been passed.

But he says then his talks with ministers “closed down”. And he is “none the wiser” as to why ministers need this power.

He is not prepared to sign away legislation giving ministers these extensive powers, he says.

John Redwood, a Conservative, asks what would happen if, close to the leaving date, parliament voted against the withdrawal agreement and voted against leaving with no deal.

Grieve says parliament is sovereign. He says he doesn’t know what the situation will be like then. That is why the process matters, he says.

Updated

Grieve says the David Davis written statement has set out a sensible course of direction.

But it is “incompatible” with clause 9 of the EU withdrawal bill, he says.

He says he thinks at the time it was inserted, the government had not worked out how withdrawal from the EU would take place.

Dominic Grieve is speaking now.

He says his amendment 7 has now taken on a life of its own.

He says he hoped to persuade ministers to change the bill. But now positions have become entrenched, he says. And the debate has become more negative. At this point “all rational discourse starts to evaporate”.

He says he is disappointed about the way he and other Tories have been branded traitors. He is not trying to sabotage the will of the people, he says.

He singles out Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, for criticism. He says it was “startling” to hear Duncan Smith accuse him of “grandstanding”.

He says parliament has to focus on the interests of those who voted remain as well as those who voted leave.

He says MPs have to focus on means, not just ends.

The debate has become “really quite unpleasant”, he says. And he says ministers have lost the opportunity to compromise.

He says he welcomes the written statement from David Davis. It has set out a constitutional process for Brexit. And that is necessary, because otherwise there could be Gina Miller-style challenge in the courts, he says.

Dominic Grieve.
Dominic Grieve. Photograph: BBC

Grieve rules out withdrawing his amendment in return for ministers tabling an alternative

Dominic Grieve intervenes. He says if the government does not accept his amendment 7, he will put it to a vote.

That is significant.

  • Grieve rules out withdrawing his amendment in return for ministers tabling an alternative.

Updated

Sir Oliver Letwin, a Conservative, intervenes. He says Pennycook seems to be saying that, if the Commons votes against a withdrawal agreement, Brexit could be delayed indefinitely.

Pennycook says Labour would expect the government to go back to Brussels to get a revised offer.

Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, is speaking now. He is speaking to various Labour amendments, including new clause 66 (NC66), which says:

No exit day may be appointed under this Act until the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, including leaving the EU without an agreement, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

It is another amendment intended to ensure that MPs get a meaningful vote on the withdrawal deal.

Matthew Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook. Photograph: BBC

MEPs have voted in favour of the Brexit talks being allowed to move on to phase two. But the resolution passed by MEPs said that comments “such as made by David Davis” recently “risk undermining the good faith that has been built during the negotiations.” This is from my colleague Lisa O’Carroll.

Conservative rebels have been threatened with legal action if they make false public comments about the activities of the government’s whips in the run-up to Wednesday night’s crunch vote in parliament, my colleagues Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason and Anushka Asthana report.

Clarke says he is reminded of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The Commons was more powerful then, he says. He imagines what would have happened if that parliament had been told that the government would take key decisions using the royal prerogative. The reaction from people like Enoch Powell and Michael Foot would have been unrepeatable, he says.

He says the Heath government had to get parliamentary approval to open talks on joining the EEC.

The present situation is a sad contrast to all that in many ways. It comes at a time when there is utmost confusion as to what our policy is ... [NC3 or amendment 7] is the absolute minimum of what this House should be passing.

Clarke says the arguments in the referendum were “mostly rubbish” on both sides.

Here is the SNP’s Joanna Cherry on Ken Clarke.

The Conservative MP Sir Oliver Heald intervenes. He says it would be just “not on” trying to implement Brexit through secondary legislation, not primary legislation.

This is significant. It implies Heald backs the Grieve amendment, even though he is not one of the 10 Tories who have signed it. (See 10.27am.)

The Conservative MP George Freeman is another Tory who did not sign the amendment who seems to be backing Grieve. He has posted these messages on Twitter.

The Labour MP Chuka Umunna intervenes. He says the David Davis written statement issued today just says the withdrawal bill will be “introduced” before Brexit happens, not that it will become law before then. That is unacceptable, he says.

Clarke says he agrees. He says the withdrawal process has to be enacted through legislation. A vote on a resolution (see 11.27am) would not be enough, he says. One reason for that is that there is now growing uncertainty about the status of a resolution passed by the Commons.

(That is a reference to the way the government has started ignoring opposition day motions when they get passed by the Commons.)

Updated

Ken Clarke, the Tory pro-European, is speaking now.

He says his is the second name on Dominic Grieve’s amendment. He says he agreed with every word of Yvette Cooper’s speech. He will back her amendment, NC3, or Grieve’s.

The key issue is what is meant by a “meaningful vote”, he says.

He says, for a vote to be meaningful, it has to take place before the government agrees a withdrawal treaty.

The vote’s got to take place before the British government has committed itself to the terms of the treaty-like agreement that is entered into with the other members. Any other vote is not meaningful.

He says by March 2019 there will not be a trade agreement. At best there might be “heads of agreement”, he says.

He also mocks the suggestion from his “paranoid Eurosceptic friends” that he is trying “in some surreptitious remainer way to put a spoke in the wheels of fast progress” on Brexit. There is no fast progress on Brexit, he says. He says the Brexiters have not yet decided what they want.

It’s not a question, I may say, to my desperately paranoid eurosceptic friends, that somehow I am trying in some surreptitious remainer way to put a spoke in the wheels of the vast progress of the United Kingdom towards the destination to which we are going.

But they don’t know what leave means, because nobody discussed what leave meant when we were having the referendum.

Ken Clarke.
Ken Clarke. Photograph: BBC

Updated

Here is the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on the latest state of play.

Cooper says in the past MPs have fought to defend democracy, to defend the rights of the legislature in the face of the executive. MPs should not throw that away, she says.

She ends by urging ministers to start trying to build a consensus on this.

Cooper says the government says it might not have time to pass the withdrawal bill legislation under her amendment.

That is not true, she says. There are plenty of precedents for parliament passing accelerated legislation.

She says ministers say MPs cannot vote to change international treaties. That is not true, she says.

She says ministers say these amendments are trying to stop Brexit. That is not true, she says.

And she says ministers are saying a defeat would undermine the prime minister. (See 9.28am.) But Cooper says May has had to put up with a lot worse. A single Commons defeat is not going to undermine her, she says.

She says in a hung parliament, sometimes you do lose votes.

Cooper says, under Davis’s proposals, the government has more incentive to get a deal acceptable to the European parliament than a deal acceptable to the UK parliament. “That is not acceptable,” she says.

Nigel Evans, a Tory Brexiter, says Cooper has talked about delaying Brexit. That delay could end up lasting years. What about respecting the “meaningful vote” in the referendum?

Cooper says the referendum did not settle the terms of Brexit. That is a job for parliament, she says.

She says MPs said having a vote on the article 50 bill would stop the process. But it didn’t, she says.

She says MPs have a responsibility to defend democracy.

Bernard Jenkin intervenes. He asks what would happen if the withdrawal agreement comes to late to allow parliament to pass a withdrawal bill properly? (This is the point that Theresa May made at PMQs - see 1.19pm.)

Cooper says she hopes the agreement comes early. But if it is late, the government should come back to parliament and ask for an extension of article 50 for about two months, to allow the bill to be passed.

  • Cooper says government should delay Brexit by two months or so if withdrawal deal only settled at last minute.

Back in the chamber Cooper says the government is not offering MPs a “meaningful vote” because, as David Davis set out in his written ministerial statement, MPs would not get to vote on the withdrawal bill until after parliament has ratified the treaty implementing it.

Dominic Raab, a justice minister, intervenes. He says the “meaningful vote” would take place before ratification of the treaty.

Cooper says they have different definitions of “meaningful”.

I think we have a very big difference between us on the word “meaningful”.

She is arguing that, for a vote to be meaningful, it has to be more than a yes/no vote.

(See 11.27am for more details.)

Updated

May says Grieve amendment could stop UK having "orderly and smooth' Brexit

Here is the exchange from PMQs when Anna Soubry, the Tory pro-European, asked Theresa May about the Grieve amendment. Soubry said:

[Dominic Grieve] is a respected, seasoned parliamentarian and like many on these benches has been for many decades loyal to his party. Nobody wants to be disloyal or to bring about more disunity.

The prime minister says she wants a meaningful vote on Brexit before we leave the European Union, even at this last moment, would she be so good as to accept [Grieve’s] amendment seven in the spirit of unity for everybody here and in the country?

May replied:

[Soubry] makes an important point about the concerns that people have had in this House about having a meaningful vote on this particular issue before we complete the deal.

As I set out in the earlier answer I gave to [Cheryl Gillan - see 12.05pm] that is what we will have - we will ensure that there is a meaningful vote on this in this House, there will then of course be an opportunity for parliament to look at the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill.

The fact that there will be that meaningful vote has been set out and confirmed by [David Davis] in a written ministerial statement today.

We were very clear that we won’t commence any statutory instruments until that meaningful vote has taken place.

But as currently drafted, what the amendment says, is that we shouldn’t put any of those arrangements, any of those statutory instruments, into place until the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill has reached the statue book.

That could be at a very late stage in the proceedings, which could mean that we are not able to have the orderly and smooth exit from the European Union that we wish to have.

MPs debate EU withdrawal bill

MPs are now starting the debate on the EU withdrawal bill.

Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, is opening. That is because her new clause 3 (NC3) is the lead amendment in this section. Her amendment would require the government to implement the Brexit withdrawal agreement through separate primary and secondary legislation rather than through the EU withdrawal bill.

She says it would achieve much the same aim as Dominic Grieve’s amendment 7. (See 9.07am.) His amendment is neater, she says.

She says the debate today gets to the heart of the key issues in the bill - the extent to which it gives ministers Henry VIII powers, and the need for MPs to have a vote on Brexit.

The Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, a Brexiter, says Cooper and her colleagues are trying to “reverse Brexit”. Their attempts to claim otherwise are “cant”, he says.

To dress this attempt to reverse Brexit as an argument in favour of parliamentary sovereignty is nothing but cant.

Cooper says Jenkin is talking “rubbish”.

Oh my, what Stalinism is this? That somehow any attempt to disagree with the way in which this bill is drawn up is somehow a betrayal of Brexit, what rubbish.

How insecure are members who are objecting to any changes in this bill?

It is parliament’s job and it is a job they argued for when they stood up and tried to defend parliamentary sovereignty.

They argued for parliament to take some responsibility and to do its job by scrutinising legislation.

Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper. Photograph: BBC

Updated

As usual, I missed the questions from Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, because I was writing up the snap verdict. So here they are.

Blackford asked about RBS branch closures. He said:

In 2017 RBS are paying us back by turning their backs on 259 of our communities. Given we are the majority shareholder, will the prime minister step in and tell RBS to stick to their commitment and not close the last bank in town?

May said the government had introduced an “access to banking standard” to set conditions for closures and to ensure vulnerable people maintained access. She said:

Of course more people are banking online, this is having an impact but we do want to ensure all customers, especially vulnerable ones, are able to access over-the-counter services.

Blackford said May should order bank bosses to stop closures. May said decisions about bank closures were for the banks themselves.

I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

Here are two alternative interpretations of Theresa May’s response to Anna Soubry about the Grieve amendment. (See 12.49pm.)

From the BBC’s Norman Smith

From Sky’s Faisal Islam

May says government rejecting Grieve amendment because it could delay key Brexit legislation

Anna Soubry, a Conservative, says she and May are proud of being called “difficult women”. Dominic Grieve is not in that category. For many years he has been loyal to his party. May wants a meaningful vote on Brexit. Will she accept Grieve’s amendment 7 in the spirit of unity.

May says Soubry makes an important point. She says there will be a meaningful vote in the Commons on the withdrawal agreement. That has been set out by David Davis is a ministerial statement.

She says the Grieve amendment as currently drafted would stop any secondary legislation being passed until the withdrawal bill has been put on the statute book. That could come “very late” she says, which would hinder a smooth Brexit.

  • May says government is rejecting the Grieve amendment because it could delay key Brexit legislation.

There was a vague hint in what May said that, if Grieve were to reword his amendment for report stage, it might be acceptable to ministers.

Labour’s Colleen Fletcher, who represents Coventry, says it is burst with pride about being city of culture.

May congratulates Coventry. She says the Tory mayor for the West Midlands, Andy Street, played a role.

The Green MP Caroline Lucas says she tabled a question to Philip Hammond asking for his evidence for his claim that disabled people are to blame for productivity problems. But he could provide no evidence for that. Will she make him retract?

May says Hammond did not say what Lucas is claiming.

John Lamont, a Conservative, asks May to oppose the Scottish government raising taxes.

May says this is a real test for the Scottish government. She says Scotland has had an extra £2bn.

The SNP’s Stewart McDonald asks about employers offering trial work when no job exists. He says he has a backbench bill to end unpaid trial shifts. Will the government back that?

May says it is already law that people are paid for the work that they do.

Labour’s Stephen Timms asks why no work has been done on the impact of Brexit.

May says that is not the case. There are over 800 pages of sectoral analysis, she says.

Eddie Hughes, a Conservative, says as a member of the women and equalities committee he sees himself as a fellow sister. Does he agree women can take on the top jobs?

May says Harriet Harman has never described her as a fellow sister. One day Labour may have a female leader, she says.

Labour’s Barry Sheerman recalls May’s maiden speech in 1997. It stressed the importance of vocational education. But now that sector is in crisis. Will May break some heads and get this sorted?

May says a growing number of people are going into apprenticeships. She called for it in 1997. Now she is delivering.

Labour’s Caroline Flint says May has not got a clue about small towns. She asks about bank closures in her constituency. Will May admit that the government’s access to banking protocol has failed to keep a single branch open?

May says she addressed this when answering Ian Blackford’s question about branch closures. (I will post that exchange soon.) She says this government is raising more from the bank surcharge than Labour ever did.

Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative, asks May to thank EU workers working in the NHS and to invite them to stay.

May says she can thank them. And she is very pleased that the Brexit deal will allow EU workers to stay.

Labour’s Alex Norris asks about support for women’s refuges.

May says she recognises the importance of this. Funding for the victims of domestic violence has been ring-fenced. A new funding model will be introduced to fund refuges. It will make the system work better, she says.

Caroline Johnson, a Conservative, says the biggest issue in her Sleaford constituency is the provision of broadband in rural areas. Will the government ensure everyone can get superfast broadband?

May says this is a matter of concern to many areas across the country. Over 90% of premises in Lincolnshire can now get superfast broadband. No community has been forgotten, she says.

This is from Sky’s Lewis Goodall.

PMQs - Snap verdict

PMQs - Snap verdict: Corbyn is back on form. Eschewing Brexit, which despite being the story of the day isn’t a topic where he’s been comfortable at PMQs, he devoted all six of his questions to housing and notched up a convincing win with a series of solid, awkward questions. He was at his best at the beginning, with the challenge to May about whether she could commit to reducing homelessness next year, and in his final question, with a powerful clip about the Tories being in the pocket of landlords and developers. It was also a PMQs that saw Corbyn several times defending the record of the last Labour government. May pushed back with a plethora of statistics about Labour’s record on housing, but criticising Labour for not building houses during a recess is a tenuous line of attack and, although May had an intellectual response to Corbyn, she did not have an emotional one. Housing is an increasing problem for more and more people, and they expect the prime minister to show that she gets this. Faced with questions on a topic like this, David Cameron would have exuded some sympathy. May doesn’t have that emotional range, and it’s a weakness.

Corbyn says home ownership has fallen by 200,000 under the Tories. Under Labour it rose by 1m. He says too many private homes are not up to standard. Does May support homes being fit for human habitation?

Of course, says May. But she says the number of homes not meeting standards is down by 49%. Statutory homelessness peaked under Labour. It has come down, she says.

Corbyn says under Labour 1m homes were brought up to a decent standard. He says he hopes May will back a Labour backbench bill saying homes must be fit for human habitation. He asks when the government will get out of the pockets of landlords and developers and deliver good housing.

May says the number of people on the social housing waiting list went up under Labour. More affordable houses have been delivered in the last seven years than in the last seven years of the Labour government. The Conservatives are doing what is necessary, she says.

Corbyn says one in 100 children is homeless at any one time. That is a national disgrace. He quotes from a letter from Rachel, who says she has a knot in her stomach every January signing a new tenancy agreement. Will May back secure three-year tenancies for all renters?

May says the government is looking at how to encourage longer term tenancies. She says Corbyn talks about people renting their homes. Labour wants rent controls. But they don’t work; they reduce the number of homes available. Shelter says that too, she says.

Corbyn says evictions by private landlords have quadrupled since 2010. There is not security in the private sector, and May knows that. The government promised one for one replacement when council homes are sold off. But that is not happening, he says.

May says the government has given councils more flexibility. Labour would take away the right of people to buy a council house. She says the shadow housing minister said that if fewer people owned their own home, that was not such a bad thing.

Jeremy Corbyn says the Grenfell Tower fire took the lives of 71 people. He also will be at the memorial service. The fire showed how working class communities are treated. Homelessness has risen by 50% under this government. Will the government pledge to bring it down next year.

May says the government is putting into a place a number of projects to address rough sleeping. But we need to ensure more homes are available, she says. The budget set out a number of means to address this. Under Labour house building went down, she says.

Corbyn says the last Labour government cut homelessness by two thirds. The number of children in temporary accommodation was a lot less than now. He says it is too late for this Christmas, but can May promise that by next Christmas fewer children will not have a home to call their own.

May says she wants children to wake up in a home of their own. Councils can place families in private accommodation. Families are not placed in B&B accommodation except in an emergency. She says her government will put a clear priority on housing. And it will seek to prevent homelessness before it happens.

Cheryl Gillan, a Conservative, says May has said MPs will get the chance to vote on the Brexit withdrawal deal. Can she confirm that?

May says there will be a vote in both houses of parliament. She says she expects the UK parliament to vote before the European parliament, ie well before March 2019. Then there will be a withdrawal agreement and implementation bill, she says. And after that there will be one or more agreements covering trade, and futher legislation on that.

Theresa May says this week marks the six months anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. She will be attending the memorial service tomorrow, she says.

PMQs

PMQs is starting shortly.

The Labour MP Chuka Umunna thinks the Brexit secretary David Davis is in no position to lecture Tory MPs on loyalty.

MPs are set to receive a 1.8% pay rise in April 2018, taking their basic salary to 77,379 a year, the Press Association reports. The increase is set automatically in line with the annual change in average weekly earnings across the public sector in October, calculated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) at 1.8%. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said the final figure would depend on whether the ONS revises its calculation in a review due to take place in February.

There will two sets of votes on the EU withdrawal bill tonight: some amendments will be put to the vote at around 7pm, after six hours of debate, and then after another two hours of debate more votes are expected.

Amendment 7, the key Grieve amendment, will come up in the first tranche of voting.

What the dispute between Grieve and the government is about - The two key issues

In his written statement this morning (see 9.07am) David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said that ministers would not use the powers in the EU withdrawal bill to implement the Brexit withdrawal agreement by order (ie, secondary legislation) until parliament has voted to back the agreement. But this seems to be exactly what Dominic Grieve is asking for with his amendment 7. (See 9.07am.) So why can’t the two sides agree?

There seem to be two points of difference. They are both quite technical, but potentially very important.

1 - A legislative guarantee, not a verbal guarantee

Davis is promising in writing that the government “will not implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement - for example by using clause 9 of the European Union withdrawal bill - until after [the Commons vote on the withdrawal agreement] has taken place.” But a promise of that kind is not binding. Grieve wants a legislative guarantee. He is saying that, if the government really has no intention of using these powers until the vote has taken place, then that should be specified in black and white in the bill. (See 9.44am.)

2 - Statute, not a resolution

Davis says the government has committed to giving MPs a final vote on the withdrawal agreement as soon as the negotiations are concluded. “This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship,” he says. He says ministers would only use clause 9 powers to implement the withdrawal agreement by order after this vote.

But Grieve says ministers should only be able to use these clause 9 powers following the “enactment of a statute by parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.” Statute is not the same as a resolution. A resolution would simply involve a yes/no vote on whether MPs approved the withdrawal deal, whereas statute means a bill - which would be amendable. The government is also promising a bill, but Davis says in his written statement the resolution would come first. Under his plan ministers would be able to start using sweeping Henry VIII powers (powers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation) following a simple, binary vote. Under Grieve’s plan the bill, which would give MPs the chance to rewrite bits of the withdrawal plan, would have to come first.

Updated

Labour MP Jared O'Mara cutting back on parliamentary work for health reasons, party says

Jared O’Mara, the Sheffield Hallam MP currently suspended from the Labour party for inappropriate sexist and homophobic remarks, has been advised by his doctor not to attend parliament, his local party have said.

O’Mara, who won the seat from former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg in June, apologised for online remarks from 2002 and 2004 but denies some more recent claims. He has not been seen in parliament or in the constituency since October, and is yet to make his maiden speech in the Commons.
“On the advice of his GP, Jared has limited some of his activities and duties as the MP for Sheffield Hallam. This includes attending parliament at the present time,” the party said in a statement to BBC Radio Sheffield.

However, Jared continues to serve as the MP for Sheffield Hallam and continues to represent his constituents in other ways. He and his staff are working very hard to serve his constituents in Sheffield Hallam, including with casework enquiries.

The Sheffield Hallam MP said he was deeply ashamed at his online history, unearthed by the Guido Fawkes website. The comments included jokes about having an orgy with members of Girls Aloud, a claim that Michelle McManus had only won Pop Idol “because she was fat”, and a suggestion it would be funny if the jazz star Jamie Cullum were “sodomised with his own piano”. Other allegations also surfaced, which O’Mara denies, where a woman alleged she was verbally abused by O’Mara before he became an MP – when she encountered him while on a night out with friends.

Liberal Democrats in the seat believe they have a significant chance of re-taking the seat should O’Mara decide to step down on health grounds. Clegg will not stand again, however, but his successor has already been selected by the party - international development worker Laura Gordon.

Jared O’Mara.
Jared O’Mara. Photograph: PA

The Conservative MP Heidi Allen has written an article for the Daily Telegraph (paywall) explaining why she is backing the Grieve amendment. Here is an extract.

Being an MP is about country, constituents, party and self – in that order if you ask me.

Dose ensuring a vote on the final deal stand up for my country – you bet it does. I want the best possible deal for us and that includes a trade deal that will support our economy and offer prosperity for every resident and every corner of the UK. Whether they voted to leave or remain, they deserve to be represented by a Government who honours their democratic wish, but fights for the very best manifestation of that wish.

I want my constituents in South Cambridgeshire, who voted by 60.2 per cent to remain, to have confidence in the course we are charting and believe our science and technology will continue to lead on the global stage. I want them to know I take my responsibilities to them very seriously and that I will stand up and be counted when it matters.

Heidi Allen.
Heidi Allen. Photograph: BBC

Steve Baker, the Brexit minister who is giving evidence to a Lords committee, has confirmed that, if there is no withdrawal deal, MPs will not get a vote on the decision to leave the EU without one, the BBC’s Norman Smith reports.

Employment and unemployment rates both fall marginally

The employment figures are out today, and, confusingly, they show the employment rate and the unemployment rate both falling marginally.

Pay is also up - but by less than inflation, which means that in real terms wages are shrinking.

My colleague Graeme Wearden has much more reporting and analysis on his business live blog.

10 Tories who have signed Grieve's amendment

For the record, here is the list of 10 Conservative MPs who have signed Dominic Grieve’s amendment 7. Many opposition MPs have also signed the amendment, which you can find here, in the document setting out all the amendments to the bill (pdf).

Dominic Grieve

Kenneth Clarke

Nicky Morgan

Anna Soubry

Antoinette Sandbach

Stephen Hammond

Sarah Wollaston

Jeremy Lefroy

Robert Neill

Heidi Allen

With DUP MPs backing the government, Theresa May’s working majority is around 13. If 10 Tories were to vote with the opposition, she would lose. But generally the government has been winning votes on the EU withdrawal bill more comfortably. The Independent’s John Rentoul has the figures for last night’s votes.

Labour says tonight's vote will decide whether UK gets a Brexit 'that respects parliamentary democracy'

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has confirmed that Labour will back the Grieve amendment.

In a statement issued overnight, Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, challenged Tory rebels to stick with their convictions. He said:

Tory rebels have talked the talk, now they must walk the walk.

The decision MPs make today will determine whether or not the UK goes down the path of a Brexit that respects parliamentary democracy.

Labour have always been clear that parliament, not ministers, must have the final say on the UK’s withdrawal agreement with the European Union. This means both a vote on the draft deal and then primary legislation implementing the ultimate agreement.

Warm words and woolly concessions from ministers are not enough. Tory MPs must now make a choice about whether they will allow ministers to press ahead with their fatally flawed withdrawal bill or accept Labour’s sensible demands to ensure parliament has a meaningful role.

Matthew Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi for the Guardian

Here is Sky’s Faisal Islam on the Tory rebels.

Potential Tory rebels are being called in by Number 10 in a last-minute bid to get them to back the government, my colleague Anushka Asthana reports.

Ministers accuses of ignoring Tory MPs' concerns over Brexit bill in 'dialogue of the deaf'

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general who has tabled the amendment over which the government faces possible defeat later, was on Sky News earlier. He did not seem impressed by Davis’s latest offer. Here are the main points.

  • Grieve said talking to ministers was “a dialogue of the deaf” because they were ignoring MPs’ concerns. He said:

The government needs to listen to what’s being said to them. And at the moment, unfortunately, my impression of the last few days, when I’ve been talking to the government, is that it seems to be a bit of a dialogue of the deaf. They’ve turned this into a battle of wills. And this is a completely pointless exercise. They need to listen to the point that’s being made and they need to respond to it.

  • He said he did not see himself as a rebel and did not want to defeat the government.

I have no desire to defeat my government at all. I’m not a rebel. I think I have only rebelled once, over a local issue, in the 21 years I’ve been in parliament.

  • He said the government had failed to explain why it was refusing his proposal to curb the clause 9 powers in the bill. (See 9.07am.)

The government has told us that at the end of next year there will be a process in parliament to validate and agree the deal that we do with the EU. And that is very sensible. That includes a meaningful vote in parliament and a statute to approve any deal that the government has done.

But in this bill that we are passing at the moment, in clause 9 of the bill, there is a power which could be used to entirely circumvent and ignore that process. And so the reason why I have tabled an amendment is not to stop Brexit; it’s to question why this power is in this bill in the way it is when in fact it’s a power that the government should not and ought not to be using. And at the moment, unfortunately, the government has not given me a clear answer. And so for that reason I hope very much they will listen because I don’t think my amendment prevents them, in the long term, from doing what they have stated they want to do.

  • He said, even though the government has said it will not use the clause 9 powers to implement the withdrawal agreement until the Commons has voted in favour of it, another government could choose to ignore that promise. That was why the actual legislation needed to be amended, he argued.
  • He rejected claims that he was trying to scupper Brexit, describing allegations of that kind as “all part of the hysteria that builds up” and “a real problem”.
Dominic Grieve.
Dominic Grieve. Photograph: Sky News

It looks like the Conservative MP Heidi Allen is standing firm. She is one of the Tories who have signed amendment 7.

According to the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves, some government sources are trying to win over Tory rebels by playing on their sympathy for Theresa May.

Sorry, comments were left off by mistake. They are now on.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg thinks David Davis’s later offer to Tory MPs does not seem to be appeasing the potential rebels.

A key ally of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has claimed that as the damaging terms of a future Brexit deal have become clear there has been growing support for a second referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the largest party in the European parliament, said the latest row over the ineligibility of Britain’s cities in the European capital of culture competition was just the latest example of the UK’s loss now hitting home. Weber told MEPs in Strasbourg:

An opinion poll showed 50% of the British people are in favour of a new referendum. The British people realise that Brexit means losing many things, but not gaining anything.

I can only mention one example which was an interesting ones the debate in the last days about the decision of the [European] commission that British cities cannot become a European capital of culture. A very easy message that you can understand that the Brits can lose a lot.

Davis Davis seeks to avert possible defeat on Brexit bill with fresh promise to Tory rebels

MPs have already spent almost 50 hours debating the EU withdrawal bill at committee stage and so far the government has not lost a vote. Tonight that could change.

The key argument is over amendment 7, tabled by Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general and backed by a significant number of Tories, as well as the opposition parties. The bill, in clause 9, gives ministers powers to implement the Brexit withdrawal agreement by order. The amendment says they could only exercise these powers “subject to the prior enactment of a statute by parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.” It has been commonly described as an amendment designed to ensure that parliament would get a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement.

Here is the Guardian’s editorial today explaining the importance of the issue.

And here is our overnight story about the prospect of the government being defeated.

This morning there has been a development. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has issued a written ministerial statement explaining how parliament will be involved in approving the withdrawal agreement and the subsequent trade agreement with the EU. The key passage is this one, promising MPs that the government will not use the powers in clause 9 until the Commons has voted for a resolution backing the withdrawal agreement.

In the UK, the government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship. The government will not implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement - for example by using clause 9 of the European Union (withdrawal) bill - until after this vote has taken place.

But it is not clear yet whether or not this will be enough to buy off some of the potential rebels. In an interview on Sky News within the last hour Grieve said he did not see why, if ministers are serious about not wanting to use clause 9 powers until MPs have approved the withdrawal agreement, they could not just accept his amendment.

I will post more from the interview shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

8am: MEPs at the European parliament in Strasbourg debate the UK-EU Brexit deal agreed last week.

9.15am: Senior vice president of Airbus UK Katherine Bennett gives evidence to the Brexit committee.

9.30am: Brexit minister Steve Baker gives evidence to the Lords constitution committee.

9.30am: Unemployment figures are published.

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

Around 1pm: MPs begin the EU withdrawal bill’s day seven committee stage debates. Votes are due at around 7pm and then after 9pm.

I will be focusing on PMQs and the debate today but I will be covering breaking political news too, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard’s Playbook. Here is the ConservativeHome round-up of today’s political stories. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

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
Four reasons why the new DC cinematic universe may fail (again)
Marvel and DC have been captivating the world with their superheroes and supervillains for almost a century. Characters like Spider-Man (Marvel) and Superman (DC) are global household names whose recognition rivals that of world leaders.
The Conversation
The Conversation
William Shatner addresses cancer hoax: ‘This is the downside of AI’
The 95-year old called out a Facebook group he claims is using artificial intelligence to create ‘horrible fake news stories’ about him.
Evening Standard
Evening Standard
Gary Numan says David Bowie had him thrown off set
Gary Numan has revealed he was once kicked out of a shoot after the music icon allegedly didn’t want him in the room.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Blake Lively's Legal Strategy in Focus After Judge Cuts 10 Claims in Justin Baldoni Battle
Judge dismisses most claims in Blake Lively's case against Justin Baldoni, leaving breach of contract and retaliation allegations for trial.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
If You Find Joy In Learning Interesting And Fun Facts, Here Are 63 That Might Surprise You
This collection dives into some of the most interesting facts shared online, from surprising truths about animals to little-known details about the human body. Each one is quick, curious, and just intriguing enough to keep you scrolling.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Blake Lively sees most of her claims dismissed in a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni dismissed
After a federal judge ruled that only a narrowed portion of the case will proceed to trial, Blake Lively has seen most of her claims dismissed in a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play