This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/11/theresa-may-forced-accept-brexit-scrutiny-committee-revolt-henry-viii-powers

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Theresa May forced to accept new Brexit scrutiny committee Theresa May forced to accept new Brexit scrutiny committee
(about 3 hours later)
Theresa May has been forced to accept the creation of a new committee to stop EU law being changed by ministers without proper scrutiny after Brexit, as she seeks to head off a parliamentary rebellion. Theresa May has been forced to accept more scrutiny of Brexit lawmaking to head off a Tory revolt but is still heading for a showdown over how MPs get to vote on the final deal and whether the date for leaving should be fixed in law.
The prime minister is to accept amendments to the EU withdrawal bill tabled by the House of Commons procedure committee, after a widespread backbench revolt among both remain- and leave-supporting MPs. The prime minister made a major concession on Monday by agreeing to set up a new committee of MPs to monitor any proposed legal changes as EU legislation is converted into the British statute book.
Under the amendments, she will agree to the establishment of a committee of MPs to help weed out too much use of “Henry VIII powers”, which allow ministers to make changes to secondary legislation as it is transposed. She had been facing a parliamentary defeat over the issue during the debate on the EU withdrawal bill on Tuesday, after a widespread backbench revolt among remain- and leave-supporting MPs.
The government had argued that ministers would only make use of the powers to make minor tweaks, such as changing the names of regulatory bodies to refer to British rather than EU institutions. However, the government has not backed down on its intention to fix the day of Brexit as 29 March 2019 or accede to the demands of soft Brexit Tory MPs who wanted a meaningful vote on the terms of the final deal before that date.
One Conservative rebel said May was in trouble over these two issues because there were enough dissatisfied Conservatives combined with Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and other opposition MPs to defeat the government during the debate on Wednesday. The MP said the government and the rebels were currently in a stand-off with neither side prepared to back down.
However, government sources were confident that the prime minister had managed to convince enough of her backbenchers not to defy the whip by indicating that a vote is likely to happen well before the date of leaving and promising a second vote on legislation implementing the EU withdrawal agreement hammered out in Brussels on Friday.
The appetite for rebellion among Conservative MPs will become clearer during the two days of debate and voting on the EU withdrawal bill on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Up to 25 had threatened to revolt unless May promised more scrutiny over Brexit lawmaking but No 10’s concessions appeared to have allayed concerns among the would-be troublemakers.
The government will agree to establish a new committee of MPs to help weed out the overuse of “Henry VIII powers”, which allow ministers to make changes to secondary legislation as it is transposed.
The government argued that ministers would only make use of the powers to make minor tweaks, such as changing the names of regulatory bodies to refer to British rather than EU institutions.
One of the jobs of the EU withdrawal bill – the government’s key piece of Brexit legislation, which Theresa May hailed as a "great repeal bill" - is to transpose European Union law into UK law.One of the jobs of the EU withdrawal bill – the government’s key piece of Brexit legislation, which Theresa May hailed as a "great repeal bill" - is to transpose European Union law into UK law.
Because of the huge volume of EU law, and the limited time available before Brexit in March 2019, so-called "Henry VIII clauses" included in the bill give ministers the power to tweak legislation where it would not operate properly if simply cut and pasted on to the UK statute book.Because of the huge volume of EU law, and the limited time available before Brexit in March 2019, so-called "Henry VIII clauses" included in the bill give ministers the power to tweak legislation where it would not operate properly if simply cut and pasted on to the UK statute book.
Examples given by the government include cases in which EU law makes reference to a European regulator that will no longer have jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit.Examples given by the government include cases in which EU law makes reference to a European regulator that will no longer have jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit.
Ministers will be able to use “statutory instruments” – a long-established way of changing legislation without giving MPs the opportunity to scrutinise all the details.Ministers will be able to use “statutory instruments” – a long-established way of changing legislation without giving MPs the opportunity to scrutinise all the details.
However, critics, including former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve, have warned since the legislation was published that the scope for these so-called Henry VIII powers was too broadly drawn and could be abused by ministers to bypass parliament.However, critics, including former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve, have warned since the legislation was published that the scope for these so-called Henry VIII powers was too broadly drawn and could be abused by ministers to bypass parliament.
The powers are named after the Statute of Proclamations 1539, which gave King Henry VIII the power to make laws directly: though in this case they would be wielded by David Davis, Michael Gove and other ministers — not the Queen.The powers are named after the Statute of Proclamations 1539, which gave King Henry VIII the power to make laws directly: though in this case they would be wielded by David Davis, Michael Gove and other ministers — not the Queen.
However, senior MPs across the Commons expressed worries that the powers could be misused. Dominic Grieve, a Conservative former attorney general, had told the procedure committee that the bill represented the “most extraordinary arrogation of powers” by the executive that he had seen during 20 years in parliament.However, senior MPs across the Commons expressed worries that the powers could be misused. Dominic Grieve, a Conservative former attorney general, had told the procedure committee that the bill represented the “most extraordinary arrogation of powers” by the executive that he had seen during 20 years in parliament.
The concession is likely to defuse the rebellion when the EU withdrawal bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday for debate. To deal with the problem, Downing Street said it would accept amendments proposed by the House of Commons procedure committee, which create a new process to ensure statutory instruments cannot be waved through the Commons without scrutiny under the “negative procedure”, whereby legislation is accepted if there is no objection after a certain period of time.
There is still a threatened rebellion on Wednesday over whether No 10 will allow MPs a meaningful vote on May’s final deal.
The procedure committee’s amendments would create a new process to ensure statutory instruments cannot be waved through the Commons without scrutiny under the “negative procedure”, whereby legislation is accepted if there is no objection after a certain period of time.
The job of the new “sifting committee” will be to look at each of these instruments and recommend which ones require the “affirmative procedure” instead, whereby there is a Commons debate and vote before they become law. The committee would have10 sitting days to make this recommendation.The job of the new “sifting committee” will be to look at each of these instruments and recommend which ones require the “affirmative procedure” instead, whereby there is a Commons debate and vote before they become law. The committee would have10 sitting days to make this recommendation.
May’s official spokesman said No 10 would be accepting the proposals in full.May’s official spokesman said No 10 would be accepting the proposals in full.
“We recognise the role of parliament in scrutinising the bill, and we have been clear throughout that we’re taking a pragmatic approach to what we’ve always said is a vital piece of legislation. Where MPs and peers can improve the bill, we will work with them,” he said.“We recognise the role of parliament in scrutinising the bill, and we have been clear throughout that we’re taking a pragmatic approach to what we’ve always said is a vital piece of legislation. Where MPs and peers can improve the bill, we will work with them,” he said.
The spokesman added that the cabinet had discussed Brexit on Monday, with May thanking David Davis, the Brexit secretary, and government officials for helping to clinch last week’s “significant milestone” agreement with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker.The spokesman added that the cabinet had discussed Brexit on Monday, with May thanking David Davis, the Brexit secretary, and government officials for helping to clinch last week’s “significant milestone” agreement with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker.
He said May relayed to cabinet ministers that voters had told her at events in her Maidenhead constituency over the weekend that they believed “we’re on our way”. This was the headline on the Daily Mail’s front-page Brexit story on Saturday.He said May relayed to cabinet ministers that voters had told her at events in her Maidenhead constituency over the weekend that they believed “we’re on our way”. This was the headline on the Daily Mail’s front-page Brexit story on Saturday.
The prime minister’s spokesman also confirmed that the cabinet would discuss the post-Brexit “end state” at their final weekly meeting before Christmas next week. May’s tricky week will end with her attendance at the EU summit where leaders will decide whether enough progress has been made on Brexit to progress to talks on trade and transition. After that, she faces the headache of discussing with her deeply divided cabinet how the UK government would like the “end state” of Brexit to happen. The prime minister’s spokesman confirmed this would happen at their final weekly meeting before Christmas next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, a new report from the Rand Corporation, an authoritative US thinktank, found a Brexit without a deal would take 4.7% out of UK economy over 10 years costing each taxpayer $2,144 (£1,607) and a total of $140bn.
The study, one of the largest of the various forms of Brexit on the European, British and American economies, found that under no Brexit scenario, including even the softest Brexit of remaining in the single market like Norway, would the UK be better off.
The report added that it may take as long as 12 years from Brexit for any dynamic effects from regulatory divergence from the EU to have any beneficial impact.
It said the most advantageous Brexit would be a tripartite free trade deal between the US, the UK and the EU, but it admits this outcome is politically highly unlikely.
Although there have been many previous studies trying to model the impact of various forms of Brexit, the Rand Europe Study takes into account those studies, covers more different scenarios and also analyses the impact on the US economy.
It said the benefit to the US from a trade deal with the UK would be trivial and warned that if the UK opted for the no-deal exit, then pressure on UK public finances would be large enough to threaten existing British defence spending commitments, so potentially undermining Nato.
It also warns that an EU without the UK “ may be more willing to create barriers for non-EU companies, to the detriment of US companies and the American economy”.