European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — Schedule 7 — Parliamentary Approval of Theoretical Regulations to Set the Exit Date — 12 Jun 2018 at 16:15

The majority of MPs voted not to ensure Parliamentary approval is required before regulations setting the date of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union are made under provisions of section 14 of the Act beyond section 14(4). At the time of the vote there were no such provisions.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 125

Lords amendment 125[2] stated:

  • Page 48, line 21, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—
  • “Power to appoint “exit day”
  • 10 A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 14 which appoint a day as exit day may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted Schedule 7 of the Bill, paragraph 10 in the version of the Bill referred to in the amendment stated:

  • Power to amend the definition of “exit day”
  • 10 A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 14(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Section 14 of the Bill[4] contained the definition of “exit day” as 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. Subsection (4) began:

  • A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
  • (a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom,

It appears the amendment rejected in this vote was intended to operate with an amendments rejected in the prior vote which sought to empower ministers to change exit day [for reasons other than consistency with the withdrawal agreement].[5] The amendment rejected in this vote would have ensured any regulations making such a change would have required the approval of a resolution of each House of Parliament before taking effect.

Given the state of the Bill at the time of the vote the amendment rejected in this vote would be inconsequential. Had Clause 14 been amended, or if it were to be amended in the future, the amendment would have ensured Parliamentary approval was required for any regulations changing the date of withdrawal from the union made under it.

==

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con311 (+2 tell) 1099.1%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 30100.0%
Lab7 244 (+2 tell)097.7%
LDem0 10083.3%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 34097.1%
Total:328 297098.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Kenneth ClarkeRushcliffeCon (front bench)no
Ronnie CampbellBlyth ValleyLabaye
Frank FieldBirkenheadLab (minister)aye
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)aye
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)aye
John MannBassetlawLab (minister)aye
Dennis SkinnerBolsoverLabaye
Graham StringerBlackley and BroughtonLab (minister)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

TWe're working on updating the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive