The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-04.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what process is in place to monitor the actions of the government of the Republic of Ireland relating to the 1998 Belfast Agreement.
Lord Dunlop
The Government remains in regular contact with the Irish Government relating to the Belfast Agreement in accordance with the established three-stranded approach.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-24.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the current level of HM Treasury’s outstanding statutory debt in relation to the Dunfermline Building Society; how much has been paid by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme towards that debt; and whether any assets have been retrieved or sold since the Society went into administration.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
In March 2009, Dunfermline Building Society (DBS) was entered into special administration under the Banking Act 2009. As part of the resolution, HM Treasury provided just under £1.6 billion to enable the transfer of the core DBS business to Nationwide Building Society. The remainder of DBS is currently being wound-down by KPMG affiliated administrators.
Most of the estate has been wound-down and the remaining commercial book is expected to run-off over the next 1-2 years, at which point the administration will be complete. In 2014, the remaining residential mortgage portfolio was sold by the administrators to Arbuthnot Latham and Co. As of 31 March 2015, HM Treasury has received just over £1 billion from the DBS estate.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ‘Contribution Regulations’ allow the Treasury to recover any shortfall from the estate from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), subject to a cap, via an interim levy on industry. In October 2014, the FSCS made the first payment to HM Treasury with respect to DBS, of £100 million.
HMT expects to recover the amount in full.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-12-17.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the case of children A and B in relation to Prism, heard on 10 December.
Lord Bates
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) and any decision it makes are entirely independent of Government. The Home Office was not a named respondent in the case and we have made no assessment of the Tribunal’s decision.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-19.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether parity of esteem, as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998, is applicable in the outworking of the law, and if so, how.
Lord Dunlop
I have nothing further to add to my earlier responses on parity of esteem.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-02-03.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether, under the Belfast Agreement 1998, which underlined equality and parity of esteem for Irish and Ulster Scots languages, both languages are treated in an equal way, and of the causes of any inequalities that that assessment has identified.
Lord Dunlop
Her Majesty’s Government has not made an assessment of whether, under the Belfast Agreement, both Irish and Ulster Scots languages are treated in an equal way. The Northern Ireland Executive has responsibility for issues relating to Irish and Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland under the terms of the devolution settlement.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-02-22.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether under the human rights arrangements within the Belfast Agreement 1998, they have raised or will raise the decision by the authorities in the Republic of Ireland to ban all Church of Ireland services in the centre of Dublin on Easter Sunday, and if they have raised this matter, what was the result.
Lord Dunlop
I am informed that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland have not banned all Church of Ireland services in the centre of Dublin on Easter Sunday but that there will be restricted access to the city centre on that day due to security measures being put it place around a planned Easter Rising Commemoration parade.
I understand that the Irish Government and An Garda Síochána are working closely with senior Church of Ireland representatives in order to facilitate worship at those churches in the area. This matter has not been raised under the human rights arrangements within the Belfast Agreement 1998.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-18.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the concept of parity of esteem in the Belfast Agreement 1998 means that people living in Northern Ireland are subject to more parity of esteem than anywhere else in the UK; and if not, why not.
Lord Dunlop
This Government understands the concept of parity of esteem, as set out in the 1998 Belfast Agreement, as placing a general obligation on the UK Government to treat people of different traditions in Northern Ireland fairly and with equal respect. In the Agreement it is clearly expressed and defined in relation to people living in Northern Ireland.
As a general obligation there is no definition of particular circumstances in which it does or does not apply.
As I have set out in previous replies to the Noble Lord, this Government is firm in its commitment to the protection of people against any form of discrimination, and the promotion of opportunity for all, across the whole of our United Kingdom.
In respect of the Noble Lord’s question about those who might march wearing army uniforms but who are not members of an army, the concept of parity of esteem clearly does not absolve people from upholding the law. This Government has made clear many times that we will never accept any form of equivalence between members of the security forces and those who engage in terrorism or other forms of paramilitary activity.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-10-10.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria they set in respect of the requirement for transparency and openness in the decision-making processes of all public and publicly-funded bodies.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
As a matter of principle, members of the public should be able to routinely access information that is in the public interest and is safe to disclose. Access to information helps ensure accountability for public authorities and facilitates better informed and more productive public debate.
All public bodies have a publication scheme, which outlines what they will publish. The Information Commissioner’s Office provides guidance on the publication scheme for each body. This covers evidence of decision making, board meeting minutes, agendas, consultations and datasets, including those pertaining to public spending and to public service function, in an accessible format. Datasets are published on the data.gov.uk website, while other evidence is available on individual body websites.
All central government departments are required to publish information about key aspects of their management and operations, including details of senior staff salaries and departmental expenditure.
The Cabinet Office also publishes guidance for departments on transparency for their arm’s length bodies. This guidance states that they should:
Statements by Accounting Officers are published in arm’s length body annual reports. The publication of these statements demonstrates how Accounting Officers have fulfilled his or her personal responsibility to manage and control the resources in the organisation.
In its annual Public Bodies Reports the Cabinet Office sets out high-level information on arm’s length body transparency in areas including publication of annual reports and open board meetings.
The transparency data published by government does not disclose personal data. Where necessary, minutes and papers which detail decision-making are edited to remove data which could be used to identify individuals.
Transparency information published by the local government is governed by the transparency code. The principles that underpin the code are the same, and similarly, data pertaining to function and spend data must be disclosed. The code has just undergone consultation. Proposed changes include altering the way transparency data is published and presented to increase accessibility.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-09.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they believe that some parts of the UK require different human rights legislation to others; and if so, why and what are the different rights.
Lord Faulks
The government is committed to protecting human rights across the United Kingdom, continuing the UK’s proud tradition of respect for human rights. There is, of course, already some variation in the legal framework for human rights across the UK, as the devolved administrations have competence to legislate in respect of human rights in the policy areas which are devolved to them.
The government was elected with a mandate to reform the UK’s human rights framework. We will consider the implications of a Bill of Rights on devolution as we develop our proposals. We will, of course, fully engage with the devolved administrations.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-24.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider amending electoral law to provide for and require the amounts and details of parliamentary candidates’ election expenses to be published online, and whether this could be implemented voluntarily in the meantime.
Lord Bridges of Headley
Electoral legislation sets out the process for publicising the details and amounts of candidates’ election expenses; election expenses are made available for two years after they are submitted.
Current electoral law does not expressly require candidates’ election expenses to be published online, but nor is this expressly excluded.
The Law Commission has raised the matter of online publication of this information in their review of electoral law. This review is on-going and we are awaiting the recommendations of the Law Commission before consideration is given to further legislation in respect of this matter.
The Government is therefore not persuaded of the need to change legislation at this time.