May faces over 150 amendments to get Brexit through Commons

MPs pressing for changes to Bill on leaving EU

THE SCALE of the challenge facing Theresa May in getting her flagship Brexit Bill through the Commons has been laid bare after it emerged that MPs have tabled more than 150 amendments.

The proposals range from efforts to curb the use of so-called Henry VIII powers to additional safeguards on the rights of workers, with Tory backbenchers Anna Soubry and Kenneth Clarke among those pressing for changes.

The rush to amend the EU Withdrawal Bill has prompted Labour to call on Ministers to ditch the “flawed” plans and go back to the drawing board.

But Ministers have indicated they are wiling to make concession on some areas, with the Prime Minister pledging to “listen” to her colleagues’ concerns.

Monday’s crucial late-night vote saw Parliament back a second reading of the Bill by 326 to 290. Despite rumours of a Tory rebellion, it was Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who faced a backlash from MPs as more than a dozen backbenchers defied the whip to abstain or vote with the Government.

Yorkshire MPs Caroline Flint and Sir Kevin Barron were among those who abstained, explaining that they did not want to be seen to stand in the way of Brexit.

Frank Field, Kate Hooey and Dennis Skinner were joined by four of their fellow Labour MPs in voting in favour of the Bill.

The only Conservative MP to vote against the Government was former Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, who joined Labour and the SNP in objecting to the limited timetable for further debate.

But a host of senior backbenchers lined up to criticise the legislation, with many warning that although they were willing to support the second reading, they expected to see amendments during the next stage of the process.

The first raft of these proposed changes were published yesterday, including submissions from Mr Clarke, Ms Soubry, the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve and former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan.

Alongside amendments submitted by Labour, the reforms would seek to impose tighter controls on the Government’s powers to change UK law without full Parliamentary scrutiny, and introduce greater protections on the rights of EU and UK citizens.

Setting out the Labour proposals, shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the Bill was so “flawed” that the Prime Minister “should have dropped it and started again”.

“Instead, she has adopted her normal blinkered approach and forced through a Bill that will need extensive amendment and improvement in a whole range of areas,” he said.

“This is likely to cause delays and division in Parliament, and the Prime Minister has nobody to blame but herself.

“Labour amendments would give greater control to Parliament and take power back from the hands of Ministers.

“They would protect key rights and environmental safeguards and ensure that the government does not have a legislative blank cheque.”

The June election has left Theresa May with a working majority in the Commons of just 13. As a result, it would take just a handful of Tory MPs to vote with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP on an amendment to defeat the Government.

Speaking to The Yorkshire Post on Monday, the Education Minister Robert Goodwill indicated the Government would be open to considering amendments that are seen to “improve” the Bill.

Mrs May’s official spokesman appeared to offer further assurances yesterday, telling reporters that the Government “will look at all the amendments and consider them in the usual way”.

“The Prime Minister has said she is going to listen to the concerns of her colleagues,” he added.

The date for the committee stage of the Bill is yet to be announced.

The Prime Minister said she is going to listen to colleagues’ concerns.

Theresa May’s official spokesman.

FOR THE benefit of those Europhiles who still hope to halt Britain’s exit from the European Union, there is no turning back. MPs voted to give the people a referendum, the country voted for Brexit, Parliament ratified the result when it triggered Article 50 and now the process is underway to incorporate European rules and regulations into UK law after the EU (Withdrawal) Bill passed its first major Commons obstacle.

To seek to thwart the country’s decision on June 23 last year, and subsequent majority votes in the Houses of Parliament, would be the ultimate betrayal of democracy. The challenge now is making the most of Brexit. And, while the focus is on the Labour dissenters who defied Jeremy Corbyn and chose to put people before party, it’s Theresa May who faces the greatest test after 157 amendments were tabled, many by senior Tories sympathetic towards the EU.

This will require skilful handling by the Government which has not shown the greatest adroitness to date. Though there will, inevitably, be limits on the time that can be devoted to each suggested change, it would also be remiss of Mrs May’s own team to impose rigid constraints on the duration of debates – it would suggest Ministers are only interested on taking back control, to paraphrase the successful Leave campaign, on their own terms under so-called Henry VIII powers and exceeding their authority. Likewise, it would be detrimental if MPs opposed to Brexit simply tried to thwart the process – such wrecking tactics would only prolong the economic uncertainty at a time when business and industry wants as much certainty as possible as the country enters the unknown. Backbench interventions should, where possible, be constructive.

As such, The Yorkshire Post does not hesitate to endorse the words of the Remain-supporting Caroline Flint after the Don Valley MP told Parliament: “Life post-Brexit is not a choice between nirvana and a living hell. Some changes will be better and some will be worse, and much will pass unnoticed. We either work to make the best of it, or simply damn it for not being perfect. This calls for honest endeavour and compromise on all sides.” If more of her colleagues on both sides of the political and Brexit divide showed similar pragmatism, the public might have more faith in the ability of this country’s leaders to negotiate a settlement that actually works for Britain.