In this second contribution for day 4 of the Report Stage, Lord Bilimoria notes several of the areas around the issue of a deal or no deal option as well people’s understanding of their reasons to vote to leave. He highlights that many members of the House of Lords, at the forefront of the issue, are still learning themselves and that people will be even more informed by next year. He argues the Government are telling people that there is no choice but to follow their decisions which he argues is disrespecting the will of the British people.
In this first contribution on the 4th day of the Report Stage, Lord Bilimoria first asks if take it or leave it is a meaningful vote? He notes the Government’s stance during the Committee stage and queries whether “Leave, whatever the terms” was what people had asked for or if it is in the national interest. He notes that at the time of the referendum two-thirds of MPs were for remain but many of their constituencies voted to leave which left them conflicted. He questions whether they are managers or leaders and whether they have the “guts” to do the right thing. He notes that during the Committee stage on issues such as borders, education or movement of people the Government offered no argument, instead citing the will of the people. He states the amendment would give MPs the power to do what is right for the country and stresses that Parliament should be supreme and with it “would have the ability to stop the train crash that is Brexit”.
In this short contribution Lord Bilimoria highlights the Government’s attempts to bypass Parliament, that the Lords does not challenge statutory instruments and asks who makes the decision whether something is appropriate. He further states the UK political system is a very delicate balance between Government, judiciary and the legislature which requires respect and protection hence the need for the amendment. He concludes it is not about Henry VIII powers or power for the Government but instead returning power to Parliament and the people.
In this speech on the national security situation Lord Bilimoria argues that Britain has had a loss of standing caused by Brexit. He states that the decision to deploy the Armed Forces was the correct one and notes the difficulties there would have been in getting a UN resolution for this action. He notes the rumours of cuts to the Armed Forces and loss of personnel and that spending needs to be increased to meet new threats and there needs to be more direction. He stresses the importance of the EU to maintaining the peace in Europe alongside NATO and asks what is being done to maintain the important links. He is critical of past reviews and notes the cuts to the services that have taken place reducing areas such as personnel size. He notes the age of some of UK’s military equipment and expresses his anger that in the recent actions in Syria the UK Armed Forces effectively played “second fiddle” to the Americans and French. The lack of engineers and the issue of morale is also touched and he stresses the importance of the Police to national security who have also been cut. He concludes that both the Armed Forces and Police have been cut when national security is meant to be the main priority. He argues spending needs to be increased in order to be able to face threats.
In this first contribution to the report stage of the EU Withdrawal Bill, Lord Bilimoria opens by noting the imperfections of the EU but also that it is the UK’s biggest trade partner. He notes the discussion around “going global” and notes the the length of time it took for the EU to negotiate an agreement with Canada, which is in itself inferior to EU membership. He notes the other 53 agreements and their importance and also the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place. He states his desire to do more trade with the Commonwealth but notes trade with them is only 9% in comparison to the EU which is 50%. He states that for India the priority is a Free Trade Agreement with the EU not the UK. He concludes that in the referendum people did not vote to leave on any basis, the purpose of Parliament is to limit the damage and this amendment will do this as the best option is to remain in the Customs Union.
In this colourful debate Lord Bilimoria opens by discussing the EU referendum and the subject of the will of the people. He notes the realisation by many of the complexity of the issue of leaving the EU and that people have changed their minds and quotes David Davis that “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”. There are several interventions throughout which Lord Bilimoria gives way to and answers in turn with evidence from his own experiences. He argues that the country is already divided regardless of a new referendum and that the result of the 2016 referendum was not to allow the Government to leave on any basis. Finally, he repeats a humorous analogy from a Cambridge philosopher and closes by arguing a second referendum is required to allow the people a chance if we are a democratic nation.
In this speech Lord Bilimoria states his support for the amendments and highlights his own experiences in business to aid his argument. He notes the importance of the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation and that the current Bill will deprive the House of the ability to scrutinise a lot of important areas. He highlights that statutory instruments can be challenged by the judiciary, overriding Parliament, when Parliament should supposedly have the ability to take back control. He concludes that it is too dangerous to give the Government such power, hence the importance of such amendments.
Lord Bilimoria’s contribution to the House of Lords on the 12th of March was lively and full of factual content. His arguments centre around trade issues in post Brexit Britain, and the catastrophe for British imports and exports. Lord Bilimoria illustrates the consequences for imports via ports, lorries and aviation, that will result in the destabilisation of the British economy.
The noble Lord provides evidence for all his statements, and a particularly alarming case study of the 2015 French lorry strikes. In this study he states that 7,000 lorries were backed up as far as Maidstone, and that £21 million worth of stocks were lost as a result of the exportation delays. Lord Bilimoria argues this study provides a window of sight into the future, with the loss of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) resulting in more extensive importation/exportation delays.
Lord Bilimoria provides breadth and depth to his position on the argument, thus clearly portraying the message that trading in post Brexit Britain will be harmful to the economy.
In this contribution to the House of Lords, Lord Bilimoria targets the issue of the Henry VIII clause enabling government to bypass Parliament when tweaking EU laws during and after Brexit. Lord Bilimoria begins by stating that he believes the House of Lords is the ‘Guardian of the nation’, and that it is essential that the house stands united against the Henry VIII clause. Lord Bilimoria quotes former Attorney General Dominic Grieve who stated the Henry VIII clause is the most power he has ever seen the Government receive to change the laws.
Lord Bilimoria draws on an important point that the British constitution is very delicate and not codified. Thus the protection of the constitution is essential, but that the Henry VIII clause threatens this.
To conclude Lord Bilimoria argues that judicial activism must be avoided, and that the harmony between Parliament, the judiciary and Government must be upheld.
In this lively debate to the House of Lords, Lord Bilimoria raises concerns over the power granted to the Government under Clause 7 of the EU Withdrawal Bill. Lord Bilimoria reminds the House that the Government attempted to avoid Parliament when concerned with enacting Article 50. He notes Parliament must be remembered as independent from the Government and the power of Parliament to oversee and scrutinise Government must not be compromised. Lord Bilimoria furthers his argument by quoting a direct threat from David Lidington who responded to the Strathclyde report and stated that the Lords must not block legislation.
With his closing remarks Lord Bilimoria uses the time to point out that judicial review will certainly increase to prevent ministers overstepping the mark, but this is avoidable if the supremacy of Parliament is retained.