Downing Street says one amendment would be allowed to motion if PM’s deal is defeated

Downing Street has said that if Theresa May’s deal is voted down, any debate over a Brexit plan B would be 90 minutes long and only one amendment would be allowed.

The prime minister’s spokesman told reporters at Thursday morning’s lobby briefing that No 10’s understanding of the Dominic Grieve amendment, which requires May to outline a plan B in three working days if she is defeated, was that only a limited debate would then be allowed.

Jeremy Corbyn delivers speech on Brexit - Politics live Read more

The spokesman said: “[In relation to] the motion that would follow from the Grieve amendment, there would only be 90 minutes of debate on the motion, is our understanding, and only one amendment could be selected.”

The government was controversially defeated on Wednesday by 308 to 297 after John Bercow, the Speaker, allowed the Conservative backbencher to submit an amendment reducing the amount of time May would have to act.

Any Brexit plan B debate would be likely to be held in a crisis atmosphere with intense pressure on MPs to decide how to act.

No 10 conceded that its interpretation of parliamentary procedure relating to the Grieve amendment could be overturned by Bercow. “Obviously these things are subject to interpretation by the Speaker of the house,” the spokesman said.

MPs were quick to voice concern, with Yvette Cooper raising a point of order a few hours later in the Commons, asking Bercow to clarify that the government could allow more time for any plan B Brexit debate if it so wished.

Cooper said: “Given that the prime minister and the government are saying they want to listen, that they want to reach out, that they want to build consensus, how – if this is the case – can we believe anything that the government is saying.”

Unusually, Julian Smith, the chief whip, intervened, to insist that no final decision had been made by the government on how to handle the plan B debate – and even claimed, despite the earlier on-the-record briefing by May’s spokesman, that “the information is not correct”.

Responding to Cooper, Bercow said that the default procedure under House of Commons standing order 16.1 is that “debates pursuant on an act of parliament must be concluded within 90 minutes”, which leads to a practical restriction on amendments.

However, the Speaker added that it would be “perfectly open to the government if such a situation were to arise to provide for a much fuller debate” and if ministers refused to do so, then MPs would probably be able to force a longer debate on the government.

“I am extremely confident if that hypothetical scenario were to arise that colleagues would assert themselves,” Bercow told MPs, indicating he expected parliament to demand a longer debate.

Catherine Haddon, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government, said she believed that No 10 was stirring up conflict with the Speaker. She said Downing Street’s claim amounted to “continuing the guerrilla warfare of their respective parliamentary procedure advisers battling it out through Erskine May [the handbook of parliamentary procedure].”

Labour sources said a 90-minute debate was insufficient. One said: “[It] is not enough, and entirely consistent with this government’s approach of dodging scrutiny by trying to deny MPs debating time and votes.”

MPs are likely to want to submit a string of amendments for a second referendum or in support of a Norway-plus option of remaining in the single market and customs union.

Downing Street said it understood that it would have to table a motion outlining what it planned to do next by the evening of Monday 21 January, three sitting days after May’s Brexit deal is due to be voted on by MPs.

Few believe May’s deal will pass next Tuesday given that 100 Tory MPs and the DUP have said they will vote against it, although there was a formal acknowledgement that the prime minister hopes to win over a few Labour MPs.

The spokesman also indicated that Downing Street would “consider very seriously” supporting an amendment put down by the Labour backbenchers John Mann, Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell, calling for guarantees on workers’ rights and environmental standards after Brexit.

It is the first time Downing Street has publicly acknowledged it is seeking the support of Labour rebels in pro-leave seats, although the idea was first aired last October, and follows contacts between the government and some of the concerned MPs.

May’s spokesman said: “I think if it is chosen [by the Speaker], then that is something we could consider very seriously.” He added: “The government and the prime minister have a long-standing commitment to strong labour protections.”