May on course for 'meaningful vote' victory as lead rebel Grieve accepts government compromise - Politics live

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour MP Angela Eagle says his power is still constrained.

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

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

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

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

The alternative was tabled in the Lords.

Two concerns were raised, he says.

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

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

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

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

He urges MPs to vote for it.

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

Starmer says that is Labour’s position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He sums up what the government is now offering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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