Tag: Lord Laird

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the concept of parity of esteem as outlined by the Belfast Agreement 1998 applies to those who march on the streets of Northern Ireland in army uniforms but are not members of the army, in the same ways as to members of the recognised security forces.

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 2016-10-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the concept of parity of esteem, as outlined in the Belfast Agreement 1998, applies to (1) members of the armed forces who served in Northern Ireland but reside in another part of the UK, (2) members of terrorist organisations who were active in Northern Ireland and reside there, and (3) members of terrorist organisations who were active in Northern Ireland but reside in the Republic of Ireland.

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 govern in the interests of the whole community and to treat people of different traditions 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.

The concept of parity of esteem does not absolve people from upholding the law: terrorism was wholly wrong. This Government will never accept any form of equivalence between members of the armed forces who upheld democracy and the rule of law and those who engage in terrorism or other forms of paramilitary activity.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-10-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what circumstances a coroner’s investigation and court hearing is not necessary in the case of a sudden death.

Lord Faulks

Sudden deaths are always investigated by coroners in England and Wales.

Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 the coroner has a duty to investigate a death that is reported to him or her if it appears that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of the death is unknown, or the person died in state detention. If the investigation does not disclose the cause of death, indicates that the death was unnatural, or the coroner considers that there is good reason to continue the investigation, he or she has a duty to hold an inquest.

Where someone is to be prosecuted for causing a death, the coroner’s investigation must be suspended and any inquest adjourned, until the criminal trial is over. The coroner may only resume the investigation after the trial if he or she considers there is sufficient reason for doing so. The coroner must also suspend an investigation where an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is to be held into the death. Again, the coroner may only resume the investigation after the inquiry has reported if he or she considers there is sufficient reason for doing so.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether members of the security forces are included within the concept of parity of esteem as required by the Belfast Agreement 1998.

Lord Dunlop

The Government believes in parity of esteem for all the people of Northern Ireland.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-12-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements are in place to provide financial and other travel assistance to failed asylum seekers to enable them to return home; and what assessment they have made of whether those arrangements are being used in Northern Ireland, and to what degree.

Lord Bates

The Home Office offers assistance to failed asylum seekers who wish to return to their country of origin, including help with flights, travel documentation and financial assistance where necessary. Voluntary departures are designed to achieve a dignified return for those individuals with the most complex needs who wish to arrange their own return from the UK. This assistance is available throughout the UK including Northern Ireland and we do not target particular areas or groups.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have compensated those members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who underwent target practice without ear muffs; and if not, why not.

Earl Howe

Yes, although some claims remain under consideration.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their policy of transparency applies to the Belfast Agreement 1998, and if not, why not.

Lord Dunlop

This Government is committed to transparency across a range of areas, including in respect of its role in the implementation of successive political Agreements in Northern Ireland.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-02-09.

To ask the Leader of the House, further to the Written Answer by Lord Dunlop on 9 February (HL5480), what discussion she has had with the Northern Ireland Office about answering parliamentary written questions in full.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston

As Leader of the House, I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving full and timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. The content of each answer is a matter for the Minister concerned, and each Minister is responsible to the House for the answers they provide. That direct accountability is important: that is why Ministers in this House must provide personally signed answers to members.

The Ministerial Code says that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”. It also makes clear that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. In addition, there is a longstanding rule of this House that all answers should be complete and comprehensible. I shall continue to make this guidance clear to all Ministers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-03-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government by what criteria they define a serious crime as opposed to other crimes.

Lord Faulks

Various definitions of serious crime are used in different contexts. Sections 2, 2A and 3 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Serious Crime Act 2007 define ‘involved in serious crime’ for the purposes of Part I of that Act, which relates to serious crime prevention orders. Section 81 (2) and (3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 defines ‘serious crime’ for the purposes of that Act.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether parity of esteem as established in the Belfast Agreement 1998 applies to people who live in the Republic of Ireland.

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.