Cooper-Letwin

• The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Act, often referred to as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, received Royal Assent on 8th April 2019
• The Cooper-Letwin Bill

  Required the Prime Minister to seek MPs' approval to further extend the ongoing Brexit negotiations, to reduce the chance of the UK leaving the EU without a deal on April 12th
• The Prime Minister had already suggested that she would seek such an extension, but many MPs wanted this assurance guaranteed in law
• The day after the law passed, the Prime Minister duly requested approval for the UK to seek an extension to the Article 50 process to 30th June 2019, which the House of Commons debated and approved 420-110
• The Cooper-Letwin Bill passed through Parliament in just three working days, after MPs voted to suspend some of the normal standing orders to seize control of the timetable from the Government
• Critics argue that the swift passage of this controversial bill, which passed its third reading in the Commons by 313 votes to 312, could set a worrying precedent, allowing governments to likewise rush the legislative process
• Standing Order 14


  States that government business has precedence on each day of a parliamentary session, with the exception of 13 Fridays allocated to debate Private Members' Bills, 20 days allocated to Opposition parties, and 35 days reserved for debates chosen by the Backbench Business Committee
• Suspension of Standing Order 14

  1. On 25th March, MPs voted 327-300 to disapply Standing Order 14 on 27th March, to allow MPs to hold a series of indicative votes on different Brexit options

  2. On the 27th March, MPs voted against every single proposed Brexit plan, but they did again vote to suspend Standing Order 14, in order to hold another round of indicative votes on the 1st April

  3. On the 3rd April, MPs voted 312-311 to narrowly approve a business motion that allowed the Cooper-Letwin bill to progress through all its Commons stages in just a single day
• In addition to suspending Standing Order 14 and approving their own business motions, MPs have also gained influence over the timetable as a result of some controversial actions by the Commons Speaker, John Bercow
• On 9th January, the Speaker allowed Conservative MP Dominic Grieve to propose an amendment to the Government's usually unamendable business motion


  The amendment, which passed 308-297, required the Government to return to the Commons with a new Brexit plan within 3 days of its Brexit deal being defeated, rather than the previous 21 days
• On the 18th March, the Speaker prevented the Government from holding a 'third meaningful vote' on its Brexit deal until substantial changes had been made to the already twice defeated deal
• The Speaker's actions


  He argued that, by convention, the same question "may not be brought forward again during the same session", and that this was a "strong and longstanding convention" that dated back to 1604, and was vital for ensuring "the sensible use of the House's time and the proper respect for the decisions it takes"
• The 2009 Reform of the House of Commons Committee (often called the Wright Committee) proposed a new House Business Committee, on which front and backbench MPs would negotiate each week's timetable before putting the agreed schedule to a vote in the Commons
• The fast-track process used to pass the Cooper-Letwin bill has been used many times in the past, but often to respond to emergencies or court judgements, or to quickly correct errors discovered in existing legislation
• When such bills have cross-party support, the fast-track process is less controversial, but, as the Cooper-Letwin bill concerned Brexit, an issue that has divided MPs like few others, and as it passed by a single vote, the fast-track process inevitably drew strong criticism from the MPs who opposed it
• Some argued that there was not a sufficient emergency to warrant the bill, arguing that the Prime Minister had already said that she would seek an extension
• Others argued that, in the rush to pass the bill, it was badly drafted, and, with only a day for debate, there was insufficient time to make necessary amendments
• Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith drew a comparison with the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991), which is often cited as a prime example of what can go wrong when legislation does not receive sufficient scrutiny
• Some MPs argued that rushing through this divisive Brexit bill set a worrying precedent for future governments
• Conservative MP Mark Harper said that MPs "should not be surprised if in future a Government with a majority use this precedent and behave in the same way"