A SENIOR Tory MP has urged the government to constrain powers that could be “far too stark and far too great” in Brexit legislation.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, said he was putting ministers on notice over the so-called Henry VIII powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

The government appeared to have stopped a potential rebellion by backing a new “sifting committee” involving backbench MPs, which would determine whether statutory instruments proposed by ministers required a Commons vote.

Grieve, who has tabled a number of amendments to the bill, accepted this would improve the scrutiny process, providing it had the right MPs to navigate through the “avalanche” of statutory instruments.

But he was unconvinced by the government’s proposals to wield the powers in the bill.

He said: “The government has got to come up with a response as to how it can constrain the powers that are set out. At the moment, my own opinion is that these powers are far too stark and far too great and are not necessary.”

He said there was an “enormous menu” of amendments to choose from which would curtail the power of ministers, while he suggested the government may wish to identify areas of particular concern and assure MPs the powers would not be used in that context.

Grieve added: “I’m going to listen very carefully, but I want to avoid having to put any of my numerous amendments to the vote.

“But that is going to be dependent firstly on the answer which I get this afternoon from the despatch box, and secondly, if the answer is sufficiently clear and shows a willingness by the government overall ... to go away and consider this properly, and come back at report with a sensible proposal.”

The remarks came as MPs debated clause seven of the bill, in which the government asks parliament to delegate legislative power to change the statute book so that any retained EU law functions effectively after Brexit.

Responding to the tabled amendments on behalf of the government, Brexit minister Steve Baker told MPs the bill was not an attempt to create “a power for ministers to change law simply because they don’t like it”.

He said that the aim of clause seven was to take the “minimum powers necessary” to “deliver a working statute book on exit day”.

Baker told his Tory backbenchers that the government had listened “extremely carefully” to their concerns over the so-called Henry VIII powers, but added that the tabled amendments would not be accepted.

Meanwhile, Scotland’s Brexit minister has said the Scottish Government will press on with plans for a Continuity Bill unless significant changes are made to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Mike Russell said progress had been made on UK-wide frameworks in discussions on devolved powers returning from Brussels to Westminster following Brexit, but stressed the need for a “cast-iron commitment” that the bill would be amended to protect the devolution settlement.

Following a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in London, the UK Government said agreement had been reached on how 142 current EU policy areas relating to the devolved administrations would be dealt with on return to the UK, with a “minority” requiring a legislative framework.

The powers have been split into three groups - those where no action is necessary, those that could require new non-legislative arrangements, and those that may require a legislative framework.

Russell said: “I am clear that all returning powers that relate to devolved areas must stay devolved after Brexit.

“We have yet to receive a cast-iron guarantee that significant changes will be made to the EU Withdrawal Bill. The bill at present means all devolved powers currently exercised at EU level will be transferred to the Westminster Parliament.

“Unless significant changes are made, we will not be able to recommend giving consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill, and therefore we have no choice but to pursue the option of our own legislation – a Continuity Bill for Scotland.”

Repeating demands that Scotland should have a meaningful role in the next phase of negotiations, he added that Scotland’s preference was to remain in the single market and customs union, adding that if Northern Ireland has a special arrangement with the EU there is “no logical reason” why Scotland should not have the same rights.