Skip to main content

1-20 of 67 results for house:"House of Lords"

Member X
Lord Campbell-Savours
Subject X
Intelligence and Security Committee

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Campbell-Savours, Lord (67)
More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Intelligence and Security Committee (67)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I have a question for the Chief Whip. Did the 10 minutes include only Back-Benchers? Judging by the clock it did not.

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
2 July 2018
Reference
792 c449
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I should like to clarify the position a little more. I understand that the Government intended that the costs should be shared between the two Houses but, because the Government could not find accommodation in the Commons or the Lords for the ISC to sit, it was decided...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 September 2015
Reference
764 c1646
House
House of Lords

Would not greater accountability to the ISC and Parliament be provided if the chairman of the ISC was given unrestricted access to all operational material in the agencies, with the safeguard that, where such information exceeds what is currently permissible within the law, it is provided to the wider membership of the ISC committee by the chairman only with the permission of the agency chiefs concerned? That would really increase accountability to Parliament.

Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
4 March 2014
Reference
752 c1218
House
House of Lords

When I originally read this wording in the Bill prior to the Committee stage, alarm bells immediately rang. When I saw the reference to ongoing operations, I tabled the original amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in his contribution, really set out the case very much in the...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1697
House
House of Lords

I should have thought that that operation in Libya was a typical example of something that was finite and coded but which, as we know, was referred to the committee prior to the operation being completed. One wonders whether that operation would have fallen foul of what is in the...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1697
House
House of Lords

Would it not be better simply to remove the whole section on ongoing operations and deal with the whole thing in the memorandum of understanding?

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1698
House
House of Lords

Have civil servants and the Minister considered the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, when he intervened in Committee on these matters? If they have not, why do they not meet him prior to Third Reading so that he can discuss with them his concerns arising...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1701
House
House of Lords

Moved by

Lord Campbell-Savours

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “body” and insert “Select Committee of Parliament to be”

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1626
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I hope that Members, wherever they are in the Palace of Westminster, will make a point of listening to this debate as it is a very important one and raises an issue which has been under continuing discussion, certainly in the House of Commons but outside it as...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 cc1626-1630
House
House of Lords

If Amendment 1 were to be carried, there would be discussions in the House of Commons. It would probably come back with a decision and an announcement to the House that it intended to set up a committee by way of parliamentary resolutions, so none of those issues would arise.

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1641
House
House of Lords

That is an error on my behalf. I tabled it over the weekend when we were not here. I will not move that amendment.

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1642
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated in this debate. In my response, I want to dwell on something that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, slipped into the middle of a sentence. He used the word “aspects” of privilege. The distinction between what I...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 cc1643-4
House
House of Lords

I wish to intervene only very briefly, perhaps to rephrase the question about the ministerial certificate that I put during the course of my previous intervention. Is it true that the ministerial certificate could be overturned by a tribunal? Perhaps those in the Box can advise the Minister. If that...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1648
House
House of Lords

The noble Lord has repeatedly said, “We are considering”, and “It might be possible”. There is an element of doubt. It may be possible, but if it is not possible, are they then ruling out Select Committee status?

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1651
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I vigorously support this amendment because it has always been my view that the chairman should be remunerated. I served under the chairmanship of the noble Lord,

Lord King of Bridgwater, and he should have been remunerated, as indeed should my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. However,...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1652
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I want to argue both ways on this issue because I am of a very mixed mind. I shall start by taking on the case put by my noble friend Lord Reid, who said that it would become controversial and difficulties would arise if it were to be...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1661
House
House of Lords

If we go back to the speech of the noble Lord who moved the amendment, he never said that any Member of the House of Commons could stand. I had to disappear outside the Chamber for medical reasons, but I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, argued that any...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1661
House
House of Lords

If it were indeed the whole House, then I would oppose the amendment, and I will explain why. I sat on the committee for five years when the chairman was the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. In my experience, and this will be the experience of those members of...

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1662
House
House of Lords

Can I help the Minister? Surely, if the committee has asked a department for information, it will know if it does not get it back that it has been refused. The issue is whether it will know which Minister refused the information.

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1684
House
House of Lords

I wonder if we might be told when we can expect to see this memorandum of understanding.

Member
Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2012
Reference
740 c1691
House
House of Lords