Amendment 7: What is it and how does it change Brexit?

'It actually was intended to try to make sure that Brexit takes place in an orderly manner,' says Dominic Grieve

Theresa May’s government was handed a defeat on the Brexit bill as 11 MPs rebelled and backed an amendment to give Parliament a much greater say in leaving the European Union (EU).

Amendment seven, tabled by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve, requires any Brexit deal to be approved by a separate Act of Parliament before it can be implemented.

Mr Grieve and his fellow rebels feared the Government using so-called Henry VIII powers to put Brexit into effect without giving MPs a say on the detail.

The legal expert told the Commons that without this critical change Ms May’s flagship European Union (Withdrawal) Bill had the potential to become a “very worrying tool of executive power”.

Instead, his amendment now opens the way for MPs to send the Prime Minister back to Brussels to seek a better agreement, if hers is rejected by Parliament.

Ms May had previously said Parliament would be offered a “take it or leave it” proposition, but the Bill as it stood effectively left ministers with the power to enact any Brexit deal regardless of the vote.

Mr Grieve’s amendment was designed to change clause nine of the Brexit legislation, which gave the Government power to use its newly granted sweeping powers to implement a deal.

Its original ninth clause read: “A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day.”

But Mr Grieve's amendment added the clause that it should be "subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”

The statute sought by the Beaconsfield MP would undergo full parliamentary scrutiny – meaning it could be rewritten by MPs, potentially leaving the Government vulnerable to further revolts over elements of the withdrawal deal.

He said he had no option but to push his amendment to a vote because the Bill gave ministers “the biggest Henry VIII power ever conferred on Government” with no justification.

“I’m obviously pleased with the outcome because I felt it was a vote which had to be taken, particularly in view of the intransigence and difficulty we had in trying to reason with the Government over the last few days,” Mr Grieve said.

“I have to say it was the only thing open for me to do and I’d like to emphasise – it doesn’t stop Brexit in any way. It actually was intended to try to make sure that Brexit takes place in an orderly manner.”

Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight Mr Grieve said he was not trying to interfere with the Government's negotiating strategy.

A Government minister told MPs minutes before the crunch vote that clause nine was “absolutely necessary to make sure we can fully implement the withdrawal agreement”.

But after Mr Grieve’s amendment passed, Number 10 said the change would “not prevent us from preparing our statute book for exit day”.