Government loses two House of Lords votes on EU withdrawal bill – as it happened

Q: Will the WAI bill need legislative consent from the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly?

Braverman says the government will be seeking approval from Scotland and Wales and, if it is relevant, legislative consent will be sought.

Q: What is the government’s view of the emergency legislation passed by the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly?

Braverman says there is a legal challenge to the Scottish legislation. She cannot comment on it, she says.

Turning away from the committee for a moment, Home Office claims that the destruction of Windrush-era landing cards in 2010 had no impact on the rights of those individuals to stay in the UK have been dramatically undermined by the evidence of two new whistleblowers, my colleague Amelia Gentleman reports.

Braverman says the government intends to bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation (WAI) bill very soon after the “meaningful vote”.

Q: What is the scope for substantive amendments to the withdrawal agreement and implementation (WAI) bill?

Suella Braverman (until recently Fernandes - she has just go married), another Brexit minister giving evidence alongside Baker, says it would be surprising if parliament wanted to pass amendments that went against what was agreed in the resolution.

Baker says he thinks the government can pass the legislation needed before Brexit in time. But that is subject to the will of parliament.

He says the government and parliament will need to work constructively together.

But if the resolution backing the withdrawal deal is passed, then they should work constructively together, he says.

Q: Will the resolution put to both Houses by amendable?

Baker says resolutions can be amended, but that is not what the government wants.

Q: But what happens if it is amended?

Baker says the government hopes that will not happen.

Lord Judge, a crossbencher, asks what would happen if the Commons approves the withdrawal agreement but the Lords rejects it.

Baker says the government expects the Lords to follow the will of the elected House.

Q: But what happens if it does not?

Baker says the government expects to put forward an agreement both Houses will support.

He says he would be interested to know what the Lords think should happen in those circumstances.

Q: But what would happen?

There would be a flurry of conversations, he says.

But he says, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, the treaty would still be ratified if the Commons approved it, but the Lords does not.

• Baker says House of Lords on its own would not be able to block Brexit withdrawal deal.

Steve Baker, the Brexit minister, opens. He says it is not possible to say when the “meaningful vote” will happen, but the government wants it to happen as soon as possible after the withdrawal agreement is agreed, which should be in October.

The Lords constitution committee hearing is starting now.

According to the committee, here are some of the questions they want to address.

Is the ‘meaningful vote’ a choice between accepting the withdrawal agreement in full or leaving the European Union without a deal?

How does the government envisage parliament’s scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on the framework of the future relationship?

How long do you expect parliamentarians and committees will have to examine the agreement and the political declaration before the ‘meaningful vote’ is held?

The government has indicated that the motion will cover both the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on the framework of the future relationship. Will it be possible for parliament to approve one and not the other? What consequences would that have?

Will the government publish a full analysis of the impact of the withdrawal agreement as part of the explanatory materials accompanying the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill?

Will the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill need legislative consent from the devolved legislatures?

Good morning. And sorry for the the late start. I was held up for various domestic reasons.

As my colleague Jessica Elgot reports, Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is facing further pressure over the treatment of Windrush-era migrants, with Labour now effectively calling for her resignation. (That’s what “consider her position” means - Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, is not saying Rudd should consider her position and decide to stay.)

This is bound to come up at PMQs. Otherwise it is almost wall-to-wall Brexit, with peers voting on the EU withdrawal bill this afternoon and this evening, and a potentially interesting committee hearing about to start.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, and the Microsoft founder Bill Gates speak at a malaria summit in London.

10.30am: The Brexit ministers Steve Baker and Suella Braverman (née Fernandes - she got married last month) give evidence to the Lords constitution committee about the promise of a “meaningful vote” on the Brexit withdrawal treaty.

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

2pm: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Commons environmental audit committee about his 25-year environment plan.

2.30pm: Prof Alan Manning, chair of the migration advisory committee, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about the impact of EU nationals on the labour market.

After 3.30pm: Peers begin the report stage debate for the EU withdrawal bill. It is at this point that peers start voting and the government is expected to be defeated on a customs union amendment.

As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at the end of the day.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.