Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 15) Regulations 2022

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, these measures are admirable, but can we have an analysis of how we are helping other countries around the world follow the same standards of capping or prohibiting Russian fossil fuel imports? There is evidence that a great deal of Russian oil—possibly not gas—is simply going to other markets in Asia, perhaps at a discount but in some cases at full market price, and that Russian coal is still being fairly widely exported. We would like to hear more about the full diplomatic effort that we are deploying with other like-minded countries in Asia, Europe and across the Atlantic to ensure that Russian oil and gas sales really are minimised and that the heat is being felt in Russian finances. I know that that is our intention, but the facts and figures, some of which have been touched on, do not seem to reflect that very much impact has so far been made.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to £18 billion-worth of assets that have been seized. The noble Lord will be well aware of the billions that have been frozen under a United Nations resolution with regard to Libya, which have been untouched and from which victims in this country have not received any support. Is it the case that we could be seeing a repeat of that performance and that those assets will have to be managed? Perhaps investment should be improved by people in our system and then given back again whenever the conflict ends.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am just waiting to see whether anyone else wishes to comment—every time someone says something, it provokes a point. I hope I am not going to be too provocative. I want to start by being very clear that the Opposition are at one with the Government on these sanctions. We will do whatever we can to support their speedy reduction. If there is one message from this House, it is that this country is absolutely united against Putin’s illegal war and, in particular, as we have seen, the recent indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, designed to do one thing, which is to damage the homes and the heating of families and children. So I start by saying that we are absolutely at one with the Government.

The No. 15 regulations rightly extend the prohibitions on goods critical to Russian industries. I am particularly pleased about that instrument ending the importation of liquefied natural gas—LNG—originating from Russia. Western allies, including the EU, have made real progress this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, in obtaining liquefied natural gas from appropriate sources, such as the United States. Prohibiting this Russian source is a good step towards energy security.

There is one thing about the speed of the introduction. The Minister highlighted an error that occurred, but another thing that struck me was that the import ban will not come in until January 2023. He explained that the error would mean that certain prohibitions will not come in until January, but why will that ban not come into force until January 2023?

I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, because he is absolutely right. It is not just about working with allies to impose sanctions. What are we doing to support countries which need these energy supplies? What are we doing to advise them on and provide help with alternative sources? It is not easy for countries to suddenly switch if they have become reliant over the years, so it is not just a question of offering sticks. It is also about encouragement and support, so I hope the Minister can tell us a bit about that.

The ban on liquefied natural gas also prohibits loans to firms that support Russian interests, even if they are based outside Russia. To what extent are the Government already monitoring which companies are providing finance for these purposes? The Minister has said on many occasions that whatever sanctions we may introduce, there will be someone trying to circumvent them. That means enforcement is critical—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made this point. The United States appears to have quite strong enforcement measures. Are we examining not just how we act in concert when introducing legislation, but exactly how we can more effectively act in concert on enforcement, which will ensure that people do not easily circumvent it?

My noble friend’s question on circumvention was a good one. If this is being done so explicitly, I hope we can take more direct action on it. However, the regulations also have exceptions—I want the Minister to highlight some of these—which will allow oil products to be provided to third countries. Can he explain a little more about the circumstances where this would be permissible? In particular, we have heard about other countries’ roles in importing and then exporting. We need to be reassured that we are taking that into account.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made the broader point about international co-operation and co-ordination on sanctions. In our consideration of each statutory instrument as it has come in, we have certainly raised with the Minister the fact that the United States and Canada seem able to introduce sanctions faster, or well before our own. There may be good reasons for that—it is an incremental build.

As we move into a longer period of these sanctions, I wonder whether the FCDO has done a general assessment of where and why there may be gaps, and how we can hit Russia with one big hit, rather than taking an incremental approach. It would be really good if Parliament could be given such an assessment. How are we building up allies and persuading others to join, even if they are unable to match our speed of implementation? Are they at least coming on board in some of the other areas?

In conclusion, I reiterate the Opposition’s full support for the Government’s actions here, and we look forward to further clarification.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, here we are again. I could not disagree with anything that has been said by anyone who has spoken. I would like the Minister, for whom we all have real affection and high regard—

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Wait for it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Of course, everything is discerning and discriminating.

I would like the Minister to give us two reasons, or even one, why it is sensible to carry on with this Bill. We have heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that sensible talks seem to be taking place on the fringes of the great COP meeting in Egypt and there are other signs of talking going on, so what is the point—I have used this expression before, and I make no apology for using it again—in Parliament putting government and negotiators into a straitjacket? It is just nonsensical. We all hope the negotiations will result in certain changes to the protocol, but why drive this Bill through at this very time?

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, talked about the DUP. I have always felt that it is bad to pay danegeld. That, really, is what is happening here, and it is mixed up with treaty obligations—I underline the word “obligations”—and with opportunities which many people in Northern Ireland wish to take advantage of, suitably amended.

We are on our fourth day of debate on this very bad and, in my view, wholly unnecessary Bill. Let us pause it. Let us watch the negotiations with—I hope—acclamation and welcome their results. Let us not waste parliamentary time on such a badly drafted Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us, even the explanatory clauses do not explain it; they obfuscate and make it worse. Let us get on with some proper business and leave this rubbish in the heap where it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

He has done so.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, Amendment 38, among others, refers to the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in approving the conduct of Ministers. I suppose that a parallel would be a legislative consent Motion; it is the same kind of principle. It is good to hear that negotiations are taking place, but the people who are most directly affected not just by this legislation but by the protocol itself are excluded from this process. Noble Lords should bear in mind that, if a trader brings a vehicle into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the first person whom that trader will deal with will be an employee of a Northern Ireland government department, responsible to a Northern Ireland Executive Minister.

The people who are the most directly affected and who have a direct responsibility for the implementation of any of these processes—that is, the politicians in Northern Ireland—are spectators in a matter that most directly affects them. Of course, it is a national issue and an international issue; but when you drill down, as Amendment 38 is attempting to do, the people with their hands on the problem on the day, every day, are out of the frame altogether.

Now I do not care what the issue is, but have we learned nothing in this place over the last 30 or 40 years? If you exclude people from something that directly affects them—and we had the Anglo-Irish process in the mid-1980s, when we followed the same principle that you negotiate over somebody’s head and shove a piece of paper in front of them and say, “There you are: implement it”—it will not work.

Amendment 38 is just one example. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to engage the politicians in Stormont directly in this process? That could be part of a solution. When we were part of the EU, it was not unusual for Ministers from Westminster to include devolved Ministers with them in their delegations. That was quite a normal process. Can we not adapt that principle? One Minister said a week or two ago—he meant well, I have no doubt—“Leave it to us. We’ve got your back here. We’ll look after it for you.” I have to say, with the greatest respect, that our backs are so full of dagger holes that we know all about that. We will believe only what we see and hear ourselves. Bring our politicians into the picture; bring them to the table with you so they are not your enemy.

I accept, of course, that we are dealing with an international issue, and foreign affairs and related matters are not devolved—I get that. But have we not enough flexibility to bring people along as part of our delegation so that they can see persons and papers? We do not have to break any rules. What is so secret?

Before he left office, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is in his place, a Question about all the committees that have been set up under the agreement and who populated them. I think he left office before he was able to reply to that Question, but who are they? I do not know who they are. Where are they? How many of these committees do we have? All I can tell you is that nobody of political significance in Belfast is engaged. It will not work—fix it. Let us make these discussions meaningful. Let us get the people who have to deliver what is agreed, at the table. We would never have got the Good Friday agreement had we not done that by bringing everybody in.

I have listened at some length to the arguments about the legality of the legislation and its role. I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully invite colleagues to review the evidence submitted to the Sub-Committee on the Protocol in Ireland/Northern Ireland by Professor Boyle and another colleague from the University of Cambridge on what they consider to be the legal position of this legislation. They came to the joint conclusion that the Article 16 process would have to be involved in order to make it legal. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but I refer Members to that piece of evidence. The transcript is available, it was a public investigation by our committee, and I commend it to colleagues. I ask them to look at it and see what merit there is for us.

There is a solution here; we can find a way through this. However, I can tell colleagues from years of experience—other people in this Chamber can do the same—that, with the process that we have chosen to take, we are going about things the wrong way. I understand where the Government are coming from with the legislation, and I do not wish to see the UK Government’s negotiating position weakened, but I want success. We are facing the worst crisis economically in many decades. Northern Ireland’s community is facing increased costs, in part as a result of the protocol, obviously we have the lowest levels of income, and we also have a different energy system to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Basically, our political class is out to lunch. We are not contributing anything to the solutions, because of the stand-off at Stormont. I do not want to see Sinn Féin’s argument that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity justified, and that is the risk we are taking. My appeal to the Minister concerning any—indeed, all—of these amendments involving support and approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly is that one of the ways to get the Assembly going again is to engage the people who have to operate the outcome of the negotiations, so that they are part of the solution and have ownership of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

Does the noble Lord accept that in Northern Ireland, when we have a democratic vacuum, the men of violence fill the gap? Is he aware that only last week, because there was a call from Dublin for joint authority in Northern Ireland—government by both Dublin and London—a bomb was planned to be planted in a government building in the Republic of Ireland, which was called off, hours before it was due to explode, only when the Government here announced that there would be no joint authority?

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

The noble Lord is correct. I agree that history tells us that a vacuum will be filled, and it will not be filled by people who are committed to the democratic process. That is well established. There is no legitimacy for joint authority. The manifesto of the Government was clear in 2019 that it was explicitly excluded, although it was interesting that at this weekend’s Sinn Féin conference, its plan B was specifically aimed at some form of jointery. That is why I say we can see where the road is leading us.

I come back to the Minister and ask him to prevail on his colleagues to open the door to the people of Northern Ireland and the elected Members, so that they can participate in the process of negotiations; they will not be sitting in the front row, but they can be in the room, they can be advising Ministers, they can be contributing and they can feed that back to their supporters. It will have a calming effect if they can see that, and if the people who have to implement the thing on the ground are part of the solution. Surely that makes common sense. What is the point of having devolution if the people who have responsibility for delivering parts of this are not even at the table?

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, we have ranged once again, in a debate on one of the amendments, far and wide across the whole gamut of the protocol Bill and the protocol itself. In that context, I want to follow up on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who talked about the state of the negotiations, the technical talks, the discussions, the conversations or whatever they may be. As he rightly said, we are not au fait with the detail, and those of us whom the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referenced who deal with politics in Northern Ireland and represent people in Northern Ireland are not privy to the details either.

I think that it is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr said, that there appears to be no difference in the negotiating mandate of Commissioner Vice-President Šefčovič so far as the EU side of the negotiations is concerned. Indeed, that has been confirmed to me and, I am sure, to other noble Lords informally by people who are closer to the talks than many of us are. Of course, the Government’s position has been set out in the Command Paper, published in July 2021, and in the Bill, but so long as the negotiating mandate of the European Union negotiator is not changed, there can be little prospect for any positive outcome from the discussions, certainly not in the short term.

We can all agree that we need to solve this problem, and there are only two ways that it can be solved. It is either by negotiation or by action on the part of His Majesty’s Government. The danger of saying, “We’re not going to get anywhere in the discussions and we should pull or pause the Bill” is in what happens in Northern Ireland. What happens to the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement? What happens to the institutions? I have heard very little reference thus far from noble Lords who do not have a direct connection with Northern Ireland about the implications on the political and peace process in Northern Ireland.

The longer we do not have any outcome from negotiations, and if nothing is happening on the Government’s side on legislation, then the institutions will not be reformed, because there is not the basis for power sharing, when you have trashed one of the main strands of the agreement—strand 3, the east-west dimension—and when you have undermined the Northern Ireland Assembly through the removal of the cross-community consent principle. We have to address these matters.

While people may focus on what the outcome may be in terms of the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement—I entirely understand that—we also have to examine the implications on the Belfast agreement, on the St Andrews agreement, and on the peace and political process in Northern Ireland, which is in a very fragile state. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, highlighted a recent example of where these things can go.

I urge your Lordships to examine and bear in mind the implications, if we do not get a negotiated outcome which is satisfactory. I share the analysis of noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it does not look as if that is going to happen—certainly any time soon—and if we at the same time do not proceed with the Bill, where on earth does that leave the political process in Northern Ireland? It leaves it in a continuing state of limbo, which we have all agreed can be filled only by dangerous people—men of violence. We need to address these matters urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not intend to come in at this stage—there are further amendments later that I am interested in making a contribution to—but I agree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said. Over the last year or two, I have been complaining that the real difficulty in this negotiation, if that is the right word to use for it—and I do not think that it is, by the way—lies in the way the protocol was born. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the protocol, or of the Bill—and I think there is an awful lot wrong with it—I am not at all convinced it is doing what it set out to do: in fact, it has failed to do that, because the DUP has not moved considerably because of the nature of the Bill. One reason is that the negotiations have been almost exclusively between the European Union on one hand and the British Government on the other, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said. That is a fundamental problem.

I understand why the Irish Government feel that way. They are part of the European Union; the European Union negotiates on their behalf. I thought it would be a good idea if that were reversed: the Irish Government could have negotiated on behalf of the European Union because, as we have heard a number of times this evening, the issues we are dealing with reflect two international agreements. The first and overriding one is the Good Friday agreement. That is an international agreement lodged at the United Nations and it overrides everything, so far as we can see, with regard to the future of Northern Ireland. How on earth can officials from the European Union understand the issues facing Northern Ireland in the way that the Irish Government could?

That reflects too, of course, on how you involve the Northern Ireland parties. If anybody thinks that this whole issue is going to be resolved in Brussels, that is for the birds. The issue is to be resolved in Belfast: that is where the impasse is. The impasse is: why have we not got the institutions of the Good Friday agreement up and running? It is simple. It is because people have not talked to each other. There have not been proper negotiations.

I spent five years of my life negotiating in Northern Ireland so I know how intense those negotiations have to be. There were negotiations involving the European Union at some stage, but nothing like the negotiations between, on the one hand, the two Governments—the British Government and the Irish Government—and, critically, the Northern Ireland political parties on the other. In the end, they will have to decide this.

One of the great tragedies of all this—it was not the fault of the DUP; it was the fault of Sinn Féin, in this case—is that the Assembly and the Executive were brought down over the then Irish language Bill. The result was that there was no proper Executive comprised of the parties in Northern Ireland, who could have discussed all the issues we have been discussing for the past three weeks. Had there been a proper Executive and Assembly up and running, we would not—I hope—be here in the way we are. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said.

I still hope that, over the next few months, the Irish Government can discuss meaningfully with the British Government. I particularly hope that there are proper, meaningful negotiations involving the political parties in Northern Ireland. By that, I mean negotiations; I do not mean going to Belfast for a couple of hours, meeting the political leaders, and then coming back again. That is not going to work. You have to get people around a table. You have to involve all the political parties in Northern Ireland. You have to do the things that we have done over the past 10 or 20 years to achieve a real, lasting solution to this issue. What we are doing now is a sham. It will not solve anything at all. The only way we can do it is through negotiations that involve the Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want briefly to follow what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Dodds, have said. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, may be right about the European Union not wishing to negotiate with regional politicians. It has a long-standing position on that; the EU-Canada trade agreement got bogged down because of the Wallonians, I think, who blocked it for quite some time. But never mind what the European Union or Dublin thinks. This is what matters: what our own Government decide on who is going to speak for the United Kingdom at these talks. If our Government decide to involve people and politicians in Northern Ireland, that is our business. It is not the European Union’s business. At the end of the day we know what its stance is, but that is neither here nor there if our Government decide that they are going to create their own negotiations. Who they take advice from and consult in the United Kingdom is entirely up to them, so I do not see that as an obstacle.

I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the first decision in our amendment to the Belfast agreement at St Andrews was to remove the necessity for cross-community consent for the election of the First Minister. Had that remained as it was, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson would be First Minister, not Michelle O’Neill.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall make a short comment on Amendment 40 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It says that

“this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

Surely that is not an honourable reflection of the Belfast agreement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, told us, overrides all the international agreements. The spirit, and a fundamental pillar, of the Belfast agreement is cross-community support. If what the noble Baronesses are saying is that the amendment actually means “by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly with cross-community support”, I challenge them to put that in and make that clear. However, I know from the previous contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that she does not mean that. She means a simple majority and going back to majority rule, which has disappeared in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years—much at the behest of her former colleagues.

I therefore challenge the noble Baronesses to state clearly: do they desire recognition and an honourable reflection of the fundamental pillar of the Belfast agreement? When they speak about

“a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,

are they clearly stating that that is with cross-community support? If they are not, then they are not upholding the Belfast agreement and all the pretension in this Committee is only empty rhetoric.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises the important issue of the horticultural industry. On a personal note, during his time as Chief Whip and a Minister I often benefited from the precious gifts he provides around Christmastime to many of us across your Lordships’ House. Flowers bloom in your Lordships’ House courtesy of my noble friend. I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is feeling left out, and I say to my noble friend that perhaps that can be extended to him.

Of course, my noble friend is absolutely right. The horticultural industry, as well as all others, is very much part and parcel of our consultations to ensure that businesses operating across the United Kingdom continue to benefit from their own perspective and, importantly, that citizens across the United Kingdom benefit from businesses as well.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, in the other place, the Secretary of State referred to unintended consequences. I have to say that all the consequences were foreseeable—and indeed were foreseen. The Foreign Secretary said,

“I want to be clear … that this is not about scrapping the protocol”,


and my noble friend Lord Moylan hit the nail on the head. Does this mean that, in perpetuity, laws will be made on behalf of Northern Ireland by a foreign power over which we have neither input nor say?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend brings great insight and experience, and I pay tribute to his work in Northern Ireland. The Government’s position is very clear: we are acting and will continue to act in good faith. Practical issues have arisen from the imposition of the protocol which are simply not working—they are not working for Northern Ireland or for businesses, and they go against the actual agreement that we all want to uphold. As my noble friend Lord Lilley articulated very well, we all want to see the essence of the Good Friday agreement sustained as part and parcel of our discussions going forward. We will continue to work to ensure that all people across Northern Ireland have the opportunities and rights that are protected in that agreement, and where the protocol does not do that, it needs to change.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Lord Empey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Godson to the Chamber. He mentioned that he has been a member of the fourth estate, as he put it, for many years. Perhaps we will see circumstances where poacher becomes gamekeeper. We look forward very much to hearing more of his thoughts in the days ahead.

Broadly speaking, I welcome the fact that there is a review. I welcome many of the ambitious proposals it contains on science and technology issues and cyber issues. All these things are very important and very valuable. We have seen how small a place the world has become, particularly in the past year when disease knows no boundaries.

However, one issue continues to worry me. I do not believe that we have succeeded in matching our resources, particularly in terms of defence, to our policy objectives. We have heard for decades about the black hole that exists in the MoD in its equipment and other budgets. When the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, was Secretary of State for Defence, we were told that this gap had been plugged. However, just as the 2010 review proved to be a major mistake, I think we are on the verge of making unnecessary mistakes this time.

I appreciate that we cannot look on defence purely in terms of numbers of troops and traditional equipment. The nature of warfare is changing, as many speakers have pointed out. However, I do not understand the idea that you can have all these international objectives—some of which I think are very good—but deliver them with a smaller army while getting rid of one of the principal mechanisms for moving troops and equipment around the world, the Hercules transport aircraft. If we are, quite correctly, trying to re-establish a footprint in the Indo-Pacific region, how that is to be achieved with fewer vessels at our disposal escapes me.

We still have not matched our resources. I do not believe that we can deliver these very valuable objectives within a remit of 2.2% of GDP. I just do not think it is possible. We have to rethink that all together. I do not like budgets that are ring-fenced by percentages: it has to be done on need and on a changing basis. We see that with the development budget, which so many speakers have already mentioned today. I feel, to put it colloquially, that our eye is bigger than our belly. We have these objectives, many of which are good, but we have not matched our financial resources to deliver them. I ask the Minister, particularly on defence, where I hope we will have further opportunities for more detailed debate, to bear in mind that with a shrunken military footprint we cannot deliver what are sometimes very valuable objectives.

Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend what assessment is undertaken of our sanctions policy in each specific case. We have a list before us today, but of course it is not complete. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, a point can come when we become blasé—we apply sanctions and then sit back, feeling that we have done our duty. It is their outworking and the effectiveness of that policy that is critical. I also ask my noble friend: what is the mechanism for co-ordination with the European Union? Lots of our sanctions are done in tandem with it and, indeed, under specific EU laws. Therefore, I would like to know what the mechanism is. Is it haphazard and case by case, or is there something more formally established?

The Minister alluded to the United Kingdom being held in worldwide regard because of our adherence to sanctions and willingness to implement them. However, he may have heard a recent interview with the new chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the United States, Senator Menendez. According to him, London was awash with Russian money, which Russians were able to dispose of through the purchase of assets, damaging our international credibility and reputation. Does the Minister consider that our policy there needs to be looked at? If, on the one hand, we are saying that we have an international reputation but, on the other, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at the start of a new presidential term, believes that about our actions with regard to Russian money coming into this country, it is not a very good starting point. I should like the Minister to address that matter.

The other issue I want to raise, Libya, will come as no surprise to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised it and the Minister’s attention was drawn to it earlier today in an Oral Question, to which, I suspect, many of us wished to contribute but did not get the opportunity. My noble friend will be aware that, on two separate occasions, I brought a Private Member’s Bill on asset freezing to your Lordships’ House. It was passed on both occasions, but one ran out of time and the other was blocked in the other place, so it did not become law. However, its purpose was to draw attention to the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised earlier.

It is almost the 25th anniversary of the Canary Wharf bombing. That attack was possible only because of the provision of Libyan-supplied Semtex to the IRA. I am a member of the parliamentary support group for the victims of Libyan terrorism. We had a meeting with the North Africa Minister, James Cleverly, on 5 November. We have been anxiously awaiting news, particularly on the Shawcross report, but also as to whether the Government are really prepared to do anything about this. A recent reply the other day merely stated that the Government were looking at it and consulting on a cross-departmental basis. Of course, that is a necessary part of government, but this is going well into its third decade. People are ageing, some have died and some are still suffering. I appeal to my noble friend to pass that point on to his colleague.

Key to the principles behind our policy is whether it is being successful. Are our sanctions working? Do we have examples of where they have brought about an improvement in the policy and in those individuals and countries subject to them? If not, we will be doing something simply for the sake of it. Is any real substance being achieved? If not, will it be achieved by some other mechanism? In broad terms I support what we have before us, but it is only part of the picture. In some respects, the matters I have raised are missing from this because it is part of an overall government policy. I would appreciate a response in the Minister’s reply.

The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, like others, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Howell for securing this debate. He will find that his committee is not the only one in similar circumstances. Eighteen months ago, I served on the committee dealing with bribery and investigating the Bribery Act; our report is going to come up for debate later this week. While it is a long time delayed, it is nevertheless significant.

Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, to the TTIP and relations with North America. I served on the all-party group. We went on a trip to the United States to meet representatives of various trading organisations representing farmers—pig people, cattle people and grain people—and see how things work in Washington. The noble Lord is right: for anybody who thinks that it is going to be easy, irrespective of the political colour of the President, we must remember that Congress is one of the key decision-makers, and it will decide on the interests of its members. I recall one representative saying that they had X number—I think it was something like 40 Congress people—in their pocket, and there would be no agreement unless they said so. That might have been bombast, but it illustrates that if we put too much hope and emphasis on trying to reach an agreement with the United States to the exclusion of other areas of the world, we will be making a mistake.

I warmly welcome the interest in the Pacific region. We already had contacts there through the Commonwealth; I think that we grossly underplay the importance of that body, given its spread around the world. One thing that we need to look at closely is the attitude of government and Whitehall generally to doing trade around the world. As members of the European Union, I suppose that we became lazy in that we left a lot of this to the European Union to do on our behalf. It is only natural that, with our geographical location, we are always going to have a very significant part to play with our European colleagues; that is quite right. However, Europe as a whole and the EU in particular has been diminishing as a slice of international trade, and growth is very much in the Pacific region. It is important that we pursue that; I congratulate the committee members on their work.

I want to drill down to small business. As the Trade Minister for Northern Ireland, I had the opportunity to lead a number around the world, including in the Asian region. We depended extremely heavily on the local embassies and consulates giving support. I do not believe in giving freebies to companies because we found that if we did that, they did not value them as much, but you can give help, not only financial but also in good back-up in the local embassy or consulate. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure us that that is being rolled out right across our diplomatic footprint. It is important to look at all areas, particularly areas of potential growth that are going to be found in this region.

I also believe that the trade envoy movement, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, is a very welcome development and needs to be expanded. We have lots of people who have connections with a professional career, or political or even academic connections, which should also be pursued, because academia can be a parallel area of promotion and building relationships between this and other countries. I have seen that at first hand in Kuala Lumpur and other places where our local university has opened links with those universities—and businesses will follow. In those circumstances, an entirely more outward-looking attitude is required from Whitehall and government generally. It is improving but we must accelerate it.

Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL]

Lord Empey Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard) : House of Lords
Friday 27th October 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Empey]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, during the last Session of Parliament I introduced a similar Bill into your Lordships’ House. While the Bill was passed by your Lordships and sent to the other place, a combination of obstruction and a lack of time brought about by the snap general election earlier this year resulted in it being lost.

The Bill is put forward on behalf of an all-party parliamentary support group that is trying to help the many victims of terrorism in this country, whether sponsored by Gaddafi or others. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the circumstances that have led to today’s proceedings, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the background to this case. The Libyan dictator was a long-term supporter of violent groups in many countries from the 1970s, but nowhere was his support to terrorism more apparent than with his unprecedented support for the Provisional IRA. Gaddafi provided training on his territory, finance and a massive amount of weaponry over many years. Literally shiploads were sent to the IRA in the 1980s. It is estimated that four or five major shipments were made, with only one being intercepted—the “MV Eksund”, intercepted by the French Navy in the Bay of Biscay on 1 November 1987.

Large quantities of the explosive Semtex were included in these shipments. The explosive, which is hard to detect and has a long shelf life, was the IRA’s weapon of choice for many years. It was following the bombing of Libya, authorised by President Reagan in 1986 and using UK airbases, that Gaddafi intensified his weapons smuggling. Some of the victims who suffered as a result of the use of this explosive link the US bombing of Libya to the supply of Semtex. They argue that as a result of the UK Government’s action in permitting the raid, retaliation was made against them and their families. Gaddafi was looking for a spectacular response made on his behalf, and arguably it came at Enniskillen, nearly 30 years ago next month. These victims believe that Her Majesty’s Government therefore have a responsibility to them—yet, unlike in the case of US citizens, the Government did not pursue the Libyan authorities in the courts or diplomatically by bringing that country to the attention of the Security Council. Any objective observer would conclude that, had the IRA not had access to Semtex in particular, its campaign would have fizzled out much earlier than it did and many lives would have been saved as a result.

The finger of guilt for sustaining the IRA in its campaign of terror within and without this country points directly to the Gaddafi regime. The regime waged a proxy war on this country, and any new Government of Libya have a legal duty under international law to take responsibility for the actions of their former head of state. There has been a perception that Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism was primarily a Northern Ireland issue, but that is not the case. Victims are located all around our nation. The number of GB-based soldiers who were killed and injured is substantial, and there has been a significant number of high-profile attacks. For example, we had the Harrods bombing, the Canary Wharf bombing, the Baltic Exchange bombing and the notorious Hyde Park bombing.

The last example I mentioned is notorious because insult was added to injury by the disclosure that when a suspect was arrested and brought to court charged with four counts of murder relating to the incident on 20 July 1982, he was able to wave a piece of paper at the judge on 24 February 2014 and claim that he was promised he could come to the UK as he was not wanted in connection with any ongoing police inquiry. This on-the-run letter for the suspect John Downey remains a toxic example of a double standard in the way in which a potential terrorist was treated and the way in which former members of the security forces are treated.

Successive Governments have failed to resolve the issue of compensation for victims. There has been no sustained attempt by Her Majesty’s Government to secure compensation from the Libyans, either from frozen assets or by agreement with the Libyan Government—when one was functioning—hence the need to look again at the legislative options open to us to resolve this matter.

Before referring to the clauses of the Bill, perhaps I may illustrate what I mean by an inconsistent approach by the Government. Although I have been writing to Governments since 2002 on these matters, I wish to draw the House's attention to a few more recent interventions.

I wrote to the former Prime Minister David Cameron on 30 August 2011 asking if it was possible to withhold some of the frozen assets for the benefit of victims of Libyan-sponsored terror. The then Prime Minister replied on 15 November 2011, repeating what he had said in the other place in September of that year in the following terms. He said that,

“the issue of compensation for UK victims of IRA terrorism will be an important priority for a revitalised relationship between Britain and the new Libyan authorities”.

That response filled me with hope that things were indeed moving in the right direction—but fast forward to 21 January 2014, when I received an answer to a Written Question from the then Foreign Office Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. I asked her whether the Government were continuing to negotiate with the Libyan Government regarding possible compensation for UK citizens killed or injured by weapons supplied by the former Gaddafi regime. Her response was as follows:

“The Government is not involved in any negotiations with the Libyan government on securing compensation payments for the British victims of Qadhafi sponsored … IRA … terrorism”.—[Official Report, 22/11/14; col. WA 136.]


The reply went on to say that the Government considered such claims to be a private matter between the victims and the Libyan Government.

I was horrified by this reply, which was completely at odds with the response of David Cameron on 15 November 2011. Naturally, I got in touch with Ministers again to find out what was going on. Despite a flurry of letters in 2014 involving David Cameron and other Ministers, the introduction of a similar Bill to Parliament last year, meetings with officials in the FCO and Treasury, and an inquiry by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in the other place, the present Government indicated recently in response to that committee that the issue of claims for compensation by victims was still, in their view, a private matter for individuals. This is not exclusively a private matter and never was. This country was attacked by proxy for more than 20 years, with thousands killed and injured. It is the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to protect their citizens and ensure that justice is done.

The Bill has a straightforward aim. While provoked by the Libyan situation, it is not confined to it and would make provision for the imposing of restrictions on assets owned by persons involved in conduct that gives support and assistance to terrorist organisations in the United Kingdom for the purpose of securing compensation for citizens of the United Kingdom affected by such conduct.

Clause 1(1) states that Her Majesty’s Treasury must “take all actions necessary” to prevent the release of particular assets which have been frozen under European Union Council regulations until circumstances described in subsection (5) have been met. Subsection (2) states that these actions may include imposing domestic asset-freezing measures under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010. Subsection (3) sets out the people with assets who are covered by this Act. It states that the assets are owned by persons,

“including but not limited to state parties, who are or have been involved in conduct that gives support and assistance to terrorist organisations in the United Kingdom”.

Subsection (4) sets out when a person would be considered to have been involved in conduct which supported terrorist organisations in the UK. These include a United Nations Security Council resolution or that Her Majesty’s Treasury,

“reasonably believes that the person is or has been involved in conduct to that effect”.

Subsection (5) describes the circumstances referred to in subsection (1). Under this provision, the frozen assets could be released only if a settlement to compensate UK victims of terrorism was reached. Subsection (6) outlines the definitions used by the Bill. It defines terrorist organisations in the UK and organisations which are,

“based in the United Kingdom, and that the Treasury reasonably believes are or have been involved in terrorist activity, within the meaning of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Act 2010”.

In addition, it states that “UK citizen” has the same meaning as in the British Nationality Act 1981.

I think it is clear that the support group which I am representing today is fully aware of our commitments to the United Nations and the European Union that govern and control the Libyan frozen assets here in London. They consist of approximately £9.5 billion. However, we as a country have never asked the United Nations or our EU colleagues for help with this. Under EU regulations there is provision for humanitarian help for the owners of these assets to get access to them—so why can this not be extended to the victims?

The UK has one ace card to play, should that become necessary and if negotiations fail. If a new Government of Libya seeks access to these and other frozen assets around the world, a decision will have to be taken to unfreeze them at the UN Security Council. As a permanent member of that council, the UK has a veto on all decisions. We have seen Russia and China using their veto in their national interest recently concerning Syria and North Korea. Although I hope it can be avoided, the UK may have to follow suit if no agreement can be reached over Libyan assets.

I hope that the Minister, when replying, will assure the House that the idea that these matters are exclusively private is no longer the core of government policy. Private cases can always continue, but there is a national interest here and the Government must pursue it aggressively. At a recent meeting with the Foreign Secretary, the support group was encouraged by his willingness to consider seriously what could be done. I look forward to what the Minister will say in reply. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I too thank those who participated in today’s debate. I want to go over a few points. My noble friend Lord Rogan referred to Semtex and the escalation of the campaign, and the fact that citizens from other countries have achieved compensation. I acknowledge that that was salt in the wound to many victims.

I appreciated the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan. I understand the technical points he made about the letters, but of all the things that have happened over the years, the production of pieces of paper in a court, the existence of which was not known to anybody outwith the Government of the day and the terrorists who held them, was a big shock, to put it mildly. The truth is that someone charged with four counts of murder and contributing to an explosion in this country—the first person to be brought before the courts between 1982 and 2014 on this matter—was able to leave the court a free man. You can look at all the technicalities that surround it, but that is what happened. It was a shock to the core for many people.

We know that mistakes were made, perhaps at police level—I accept that. But the fact is that pieces of paper existed that were not known about. Through my involvement in the negotiations I am well aware that the on-the-runs was a very sensitive issue. It was a matter that could not be left hanging in the wind. Nevertheless, people were shocked by the way this was done and by the fact that some of the people in possession of these letters were the same people hounding members of the security forces who were acting on our behalf. They were having their cake and eating it. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, also mentioned the imbalance, which is at the core of why people are so upset.

I am well aware of the personal experiences of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell—my late aunt and uncle lived across the road from where he lives. Very few people would get under their vehicle like a mechanic in a garage to search for a device, but he was so conscientious. I thank God that he and his family escaped.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

In that context, it might be worth reminding the Minister that an exactly similar device killed one of Margaret Thatcher’s Ministers, Ian Gow.

[Lord Empey]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. If noble Lords look inside the Chamber of the House of Commons they will see above the door the names of those Members of the House of Commons who were killed—Airey Neave, Ian Gow, the Reverend Robert Bradford and Anthony Berry in the Brighton bomb. That was a very poignant intervention.

I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about parliamentary procedure. As a hand in these things, I am sure that over the years he has been quite happy to use the odd bit of procedure himself, as I am sure we all have in the different fora in which we have operated. Nevertheless, he makes the point—he knows and everyone knows—that a private Member does not have the resources to draft all of the technicalities that are needed in a Private Member’s Bill. Although I thank the Public Bill Office for its assistance, I am well aware that without the backing of the Government, it is difficult for a Private Member’s Bill to make progress. However, it creates a platform for Members to bring issues into the public domain. I make no excuse whatever for that because that is what we are trying to do here. I thank the noble Lord very much for his contribution and support just as I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reid. When we discussed the Bill last time, the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, also contributed on behalf of the Labour Party. We appreciate all those matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned fairness and transparency. Those things have been sorely lacking over the years. My noble friend Lord Lexden used the dreaded phrase “devolve and forget” with regard to devolution. With the circumstances in which we find ourselves in Belfast at the moment, I sincerely hope that we see that devolving and forgetting does not work. We know that it is not a good policy. My noble friend Lord Lexden also mentioned Airey Neave and what happened in March 1979 and standing up for victims. He has been one of the most consistent and persistent supporters of Northern Ireland over his lifetime and we greatly appreciate that.

On the Minister’s response, in my speech I quoted what Prime Minister Cameron said in 2011 and what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said in 2014 and said that they were totally inconsistent—one excluded the other. The Minister used a phrase that I welcome when he said that Her Majesty’s Government would now be prepared to pursue more openly and communicate more effectively with victims. He used the phrase “seek redress”. That is an improvement in their position because in 2014 they were saying that they would have no involvement whatever. The Foreign Secretary hosted a meeting with Alistair Burt. Our ambassador to Libya was present as were a number of officials, so he was taking the matter seriously. I believe that his approach is beginning to focus the Government on doing something about this.

Look: we all know that the people of Libya were the principal sufferers over the regime of Gaddafi. The country was a personal fiefdom. It was brutalised. People were disappeared and murdered and treated appallingly. We are not seeking to ignore them or to set those people aside. But the people of Libya have to understand that they are not alone. People in this country have to be taken into account. It is the first duty of Her Majesty’s Government to protect their citizens. That is the first and important duty of government. I attended hearings of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee when a number of other persons were present including the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and when the question of compensation was raised he said that people had already received compensation. Many of them may have from the British taxpayer, but it is not the British taxpayer who should be paying. It is the people who perpetrated and provided the material so that the terrorists could operate in this country. There is a state-to-state issue here. I think we can claim today that the Government have moved from their position of saying that it is purely a private matter to saying that there has to be state-to-state involvement. The two are not mutually exclusive, but that represents a step forward, and I welcome it.

Reference was made to Jim Fitzpatrick in the other place. He has been a stalwart campaigner. I attended a debate that he had in Westminster Hall last year. He was present when we met the Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago, along with the group chair, Andrew Rosindell, the Member for Romford. We have quite a substantial amount of support and we meet from time to time, so this is not a party issue. This is a parliamentary issue. It is a national issue. We do not know the politics of the people involved and it is none of our business. The fact is that a group of our citizens have suffered directly as a result of the actions of the state of Libya under the Gaddafi regime. While people will be free to take private cases against individuals who they know or believe were involved, this is not a matter that the Government can sit on their hands over. I hope that the contribution that the Minister has made today when he said that the Government would seek redress implies that they will actually do something.

I hope that the Minister will be able to anticipate that, if we do not see that redress is being sought—and sought in a proactive way—I am quite certain from what all noble Lords have said in their remarks that we will be back to ensure that this matter does not fall down through the cracks. We have brought Bills forward two years running and we will bring them forward every year if we have to. It is not something that we will give up on. If it takes letters and delegations—whatever it takes—we will persist. The Government must realise that this is not something that can be put on the back burner any more. That will not happen. I think that there is unanimity in the House on this matter and I hope that a message can be brought back to the Foreign Secretary to say that we appreciate that he is taking the matter seriously but, to coin a phrase, we are not going away. With that, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Middle East

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, Captain Boycott, of course, had his debut in Ireland. The House will be aware that that was not a successful outcome; neither will this present arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, indicated. In the western powers, we have an unmitigated and impeccable record of failure to understand the Middle East. We do not get it, not from the 19th century, not the 20th century and not even today. We have supported one dictatorship after another, we have supported regimes that would disgrace anybody, and yet we find ourselves here today; even as recently as after Gulf War 1, we encouraged the Marsh Arabs—remember them?—to stand against Saddam. Then what did we do? We sat back and did nothing, and they were slaughtered, their lands were drained and they were impoverished. But have we learned from that? No. We are doing the same thing again with Assad’s people. We said to them that Assad would be finished in a few weeks or months. We encouraged them to rebel. What are we doing now? We are sitting back and watching Putin and Assad slaughter them.

In terms of understanding and spreading understanding, our own Government and the western powers do not have a clue, and yet we are meddling. We have a potentially nightmarish situation with the Turks and the Russians. With all that hardware flying around, sooner or later something is going to go wrong. We do not understand it. We do not have a coherent, justifiable, morally based policy in that area at all. If the noble Lord, Lord Grade, has done nothing else tonight but raise this subject, I sincerely hope that we will go back to basics and start to relearn what we should have learnt many years ago.

Trade and Investment

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution in the gap. It is encouraging that the Minister is in his current post. Having someone who has been at the centre of government in the past five years come into this post I hope illustrates that the Government are taking the issue much more seriously and putting our exports and trade further up the agenda. I wish him well in his new task.

Like other noble Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on SMEs and exports in 2012, to which the noble Lord, Lord Popat, referred. I commend our report to the Minister for consideration because there are important lessons to be learned there.

The principal reason why I wanted to speak is that I have the honour of being a vice-president at the Institute of Export. The Minister will know that the institute is an educational charity that has existed since 1935. It is an Ofqual-regulated body, which allows it to give qualifications up to degree standard to students, both young and old, with various levels of experience in exports. Listening to the debate and the very significant contributions—some very encouraging, others more worrisome—there is one thing missing. As a nation we no longer value to the same extent as many of our competitors people in business, in trade or who are exporting. We do not give it the same amount of priority.

All of us can come here and ask for more money for this service, for health, for transport or for infrastructure —we are all good at it. Indeed, if we did, we could pump up expenditure with very little difficulty. But the fact is we are less good at telling Governments how this money is to be provided and where it is coming from. We have not had a trade surplus since 1983, if my memory serves me correctly. Obviously that cannot go on. I ask a simple question: would you allow someone to perform dental work on you if that person did not have a qualification in dentistry? Would you allow somebody to fix your car if they had not been trained in fixing cars? I suspect not, but we are quite happy to have people come into exporting who are not trained in exports. We are quite happy not to train people, to give them qualifications, or even to give them tax incentives to be trained in exports. The basic knowledge that qualifications in exports can give is a very simple thing. If we prioritise that, such as through providing a tax incentive for people who are trained in export qualifications, that would be one small step to help businesses move forward.

The far bigger issue is the attitude of our country. We just do not put the same value on other skills as some of our major competitors, such as the Germans. The title “Herr Engineer” is really big among our German colleagues; here, it is a person with an oily rag in their back pocket. That is the core issue that is wrong with our approach. I hope, with the Minister in his new role and with the profile and contacts that he has, that perhaps we will be able to break through this barrier. Many people talk about glass ceilings; we have a concrete ceiling in this country that we need to break through to get people to realise that we have to do trade to pay for the public services that we all want.

Trade Balance

Lord Empey Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Empey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the United Kingdom’s balance of trade will be in surplus.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK balance of trade will depend on a number of factors, including the exchange rate and economic performance of our trading partners. This Government will continue to make supporting our exporters a key priority.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Does the Minister agree that it is more than 30 years since our balance of trade was last in surplus and that the policies of successive Governments have been totally inadequate in tackling this fundamental economic weakness? We have no policy on import substitution and we give no incentive to companies to provide their staff with international trade and export qualifications. How can any country achieve long-term economic success and stability if this level of trade deficit continues indefinitely?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

I commend the noble Lord for his enthusiasm for exporting, although I think that he does the UK some disservice. We are the sixth largest exporter in the world—the second largest exporter of services. I agree with him that it has not been a key priority for past Governments, but it most certainly is for this Government. With regard to import substitution, while I would not refer to it in these terms, there is for instance the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of a Reshore UK service within UKTI to encourage manufacturers to come back to the UK. That is just one example of the many things we are doing to help our position in the long term on the balance of trade.