THIS week has seen days six and seven of the eight Brexit Bill committee stage days, with the last one due next Wednesday before Parliament rises for the Christmas recess.

In the first five days of debate, Conservative MPs voted down Labour’s amendments to protect workers’ rights, safeguard environmental and animal welfare standards, legislate for strong transitional arrangements, protect the devolution settlement, ensure there is proper scrutiny and accountability of any EU ‘divorce bill’, and bring the Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law.

We tabled further amendments for the remaining three days of debate, covering a number of issues including: removing the widest use of ‘Henry VIII’ powers from the Bill, protecting citizens’ rights and legislating for a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement – and we were calling for cross-party support for these amendments from MPs on all sides of the House. (I don’t know the outcome of these votes at the time of writing this column).

Our aim in tabling amendments is to seek to rectify the most serious flaws in the Bill, to ensure that Parliament and the public have the right to a say on what happens - not just the Government - and to fight for a deal that protects jobs and the economy and safeguards vital rights and protections.

As drafted, the Bill puts huge and unaccountable power into the hands of government ministers, side-lines Parliament on key decisions, and puts crucial rights and protections at risk. Far from bringing back control to Parliament, it would result in a power-grab for the government, and would introduce new restrictions on the devolved administrations including Wales.

On Monday, the Prime Minister appeared before MPs in the Commons to update the House about the ‘deal’ she agreed in Brussels at the end of the shambolic negotiations last week. She claimed in her statement that we will see ‘significant savings’ as a result of Brexit.

I asked her: “Will she tell us how she knows what those significant savings will be before she has reached an agreement? If she does know them, will she publish their value to allow the whole House to see what they are?”

Her response was telling – she couldn't put a monetary figure on these ‘savings’; and neither could she explain how she knows what they will be before she's even reached a deal.

It’s just another indication of the ill-thought-out, poorly prepared, chaotic and reckless approach the Government is taking to this incredibly important issue.