1-13 of 13 results for subject:Powers
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.242 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Powers
- We searched for
- subject_t:Powers OR subject_ses:92530
Primary member
X
Campbell-Savours, Lord
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Campbell-Savours, Lord (13)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, will Ministers send a guidance note out to local authorities to advise them to adopt the Newham scheme, which I have raised on a number of occasions in this House, for the way that landlords should be treated when they are in default?
My Lords, will Ministers send a guidance note out to local authorities to advise them to adopt the Newham scheme, which I have raised on a number of occasions in this House, for the way that landlords should be treated when they are in default?
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 February 2019
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I have previously referenced the guide that has been developed with Westminster, which the Short Term Accommodation Association wants to roll out. In fact, there are two guides: one is for landlords, which is currently being used in Westminster and it is intended should be used elsewhere; the other is for managers of blocks, and that would apply generally to residences in central London. There are therefore two codes of conduct that are central to what the accreditation body—or what we hope will become the accreditation body—is doing.
Subjects
Holiday accommodation; Local government; Powers; Regulation
Date
26 February 2019
Reference
796 c89
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, with 240 Members of this House indicating that they want a review of the Speaker’s powers and responsibilities, the introduction of a new code of conduct, the reconstruction of the Lords expenses system and the Wright report in the Commons seeking wholesale modernisation of the handling of legislation, what is our Procedure Committee doing in the area of major changes which many Members are asking for and which would bring us into the 21st century?
My Lords, with 240 Members of this House indicating that they want a review of the Speaker’s powers and responsibilities, the introduction of a new code of conduct, the reconstruction of the Lords expenses system and the Wright report in the Commons seeking wholesale modernisation of the handling of legislation, what is our Procedure Committee doing in the area of major changes which many Members are asking for and which would bring us into the 21st century?
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 December 2009
My Lords, I am aware that there is interest in change, as has been expressed on a number of occasions recently by noble Lords speaking on the Loyal Address and at various other times. However, I do not believe—nor does practice have it—that the Procedure Committee is the best means of bringing about such change. Major changes of the kind that the noble Lord refers to are best considered normally by a Leader’s Group and occasionally by a Select Committee. It is then for that group to report to the House and for the House to consider any proposals. The Procedure Committee then implements those proposals. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Leader of the House has already responded to these suggestions—most notably on 25 November and at the Procedure Committee this week—and she is, I understand, considering whether to proceed.
Subjects
Codes of practice; Conduct; Allowances; House of Lords; Powers; Parliamentary procedure; Peers; Reform; Procedure Committee (HL); Lord Speaker
Date
9 December 2009
Reference
715 c1077
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will increase the powers of enforcement to deal with drawback fraud.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will increase the powers of enforcement to deal with drawback fraud.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Myners
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 November 2009
Drawback allows businesses to claim a repayment of excise duty on ““duty paid”” alcohol that they dispatch directly to another member state, export outside the EU, or destroy.
HMRC is aware of arrangements in other member states that allow UK drawback claimants to place UK duty paid goods in tax warehouses in those member states. In order to gain a better understanding of the nature of this trade and any possible associated fraud, HMRC is working with UK representatives and counterpart tax authorities in those member states.
Claims to drawback in the UK are now assured by a central team, enabling better targeting of high-risk claims. A pilot exercise is under way to gain a better understanding of the reasons for the recent increase in the level of drawback claims and to determine a robust operational response. Previous examination of claims indicates, that a large proportion relates to UK-produced beer.
No estimate has been made of the revenue lost to HMRC from drawback fraud across all excise goods.
HMRC keeps neither central records of the numbers of officers deployed on drawback-related cases, nor statistics on the number of drawback investigations, prosecutions and convictions. Obtaining this information would incur a disproportionate cost.
From 1 April 2010, HMRC will introduce a new standard penalty system for a number of excise regimes, including drawback. From this date, anyone making a false claim will be liable to a penalty based on, among other factors, the potential lost revenue.
Subjects
Fraud; Enforcement; Excise duties; Powers
Date
11 November 2009
Reference
6086; 714 c165-6WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees recognise that the draft protocol marginalises the role of the Lord Speaker by giving Black Rod ultimate power to decide on police access to this House for the purpose of searching Members’ offices? In the House of Commons it is the Speaker who decides. Should the Committee on Speakership not now be reconvened to consider the powers of both the Lord Speaker and Black Rod to decide on such matters and whether any Leader of the House—a politician—should have responsibility for influencing a decision on whether the offices of opposition Members, or indeed of any Member, should be searched by the police? That is a very dangerous proposition. The draft protocol is ill conceived, it treats the Speaker of this House shabbily, and I object.
My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees recognise that the draft protocol marginalises the role of the Lord Speaker by giving Black Rod ultimate power to decide on police access to this House for the purpose of searching Members’ offices? In the House of Commons it is the Speaker who decides. Should the Committee on Speakership not now be reconvened to consider the powers of both the Lord Speaker and Black Rod to decide on such matters and whether any Leader of the House—a politician—should have responsibility for influencing a decision on whether the offices of opposition Members, or indeed of any Member, should be searched by the police? That is a very dangerous proposition. The draft protocol is ill conceived, it treats the Speaker of this House shabbily, and I object.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
12 March 2009
My Lords, it is clear to me that the final decision should lie not with Black Rod but with the Lord Speaker and/or the Leader of the House, depending on what the House Committee, and eventually the House, decides.
I agree that the word "normally" could be seen as misleading, and I understand that it may well be removed from the final version of the protocol, subject to the decisions of the two committees and then, of course, the House. In any case, I will ensure that the noble Lord’s concerns about the ambiguities in the drafting of the protocol are heeded by both committees.
Subjects
Access; House of Lords; Police; Powers; Peers; Offices; Right of search; Black Rod; Leader of the House of Lords; Lord Speaker
Date
12 March 2009
Reference
708 c1264
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they intend to take any legal proceedings against those responsible for the leak of diesel into the River Thames on 13 and 14 September; and
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they intend to take any legal proceedings against those responsible for the leak of diesel into the River Thames on 13 and 14 September; and
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 October 2007
The leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead was first reported to the Environment Agency on 13 September at 1740. Environment Agency officers attended the incident and observed that the diesel appeared iridescent on the water. As a result it would not have had any impact on fish stocks, birds or other wildlife. The Environment Agency officers who attended the incident did not observe any impact on birds in the vicinity of the diesel.
The Environment Agency assesses incidents according to their potential to cause environmental harm and the enforcement response depends on this classification. This incident was classified as a ““category 3”” incident, to which the normal enforcement response is a warning letter.
The Environment Agency notified the relevant water companies of the incident on the evening of 13 September at 1845. However, there was no evidence at that time to confirm that the abstractions would be affected. The water companies responded by stopping abstraction until approximately 1000 the following morning. Shortly after this time the Environment Agency informed the water companies that no diesel was on the river and abstraction then began immediately.
We have no plans to review the existing powers. The Environment Agency has power to prevent or remedy pollution of controlled waters through the issue of notices under The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999. These regulations enable the Environment Agency to serve ““works notices”” on polluters or potential polluters. A works notice will specify works or operations which the recipient of the notice must carry out where pollution has already taken place to waters, or measures to take to prevent pollution occurring. Any costs associated with preventive or remedial works would be a matter for the recipient of the notice. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of a works notice is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction (magistrates’ court) to a fine of up to £20,000 and/or up to three months’ imprisonment, and on conviction on indictment (Crown Court) to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment.
Subjects
Environment Agency; Pollution; Powers; Pollution control; Water; Wildlife; Water abstraction; Diesel; Maidenhead; River Thames
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
5374; 695 c8-10WA
House
House of Lords
What evaluation has taken place on the effect on wildlife and geese, swan and fish stocks of the leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead in the week of 10 September; and
What evaluation has taken place on the effect on wildlife and geese, swan and fish stocks of the leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead in the week of 10 September; and
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 October 2007
The leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead was first reported to the Environment Agency on 13 September at 1740. Environment Agency officers attended the incident and observed that the diesel appeared iridescent on the water. As a result it would not have had any impact on fish stocks, birds or other wildlife. The Environment Agency officers who attended the incident did not observe any impact on birds in the vicinity of the diesel.
The Environment Agency assesses incidents according to their potential to cause environmental harm and the enforcement response depends on this classification. This incident was classified as a ““category 3”” incident, to which the normal enforcement response is a warning letter.
The Environment Agency notified the relevant water companies of the incident on the evening of 13 September at 1845. However, there was no evidence at that time to confirm that the abstractions would be affected. The water companies responded by stopping abstraction until approximately 1000 the following morning. Shortly after this time the Environment Agency informed the water companies that no diesel was on the river and abstraction then began immediately.
We have no plans to review the existing powers. The Environment Agency has power to prevent or remedy pollution of controlled waters through the issue of notices under The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999. These regulations enable the Environment Agency to serve ““works notices”” on polluters or potential polluters. A works notice will specify works or operations which the recipient of the notice must carry out where pollution has already taken place to waters, or measures to take to prevent pollution occurring. Any costs associated with preventive or remedial works would be a matter for the recipient of the notice. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of a works notice is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction (magistrates’ court) to a fine of up to £20,000 and/or up to three months’ imprisonment, and on conviction on indictment (Crown Court) to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment.
Subjects
Environment Agency; Pollution; Powers; Pollution control; Water; Wildlife; Water abstraction; Diesel; Maidenhead; River Thames
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
5375; 695 c8-10WA
House
House of Lords
For what period of time the water extraction arrangements at Bray were withdrawn from service during the incident of diesel pollution of the River Thames at Maidenhead in the week of 10 September; and
For what period of time the water extraction arrangements at Bray were withdrawn from service during the incident of diesel pollution of the River Thames at Maidenhead in the week of 10 September; and
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 October 2007
The leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead was first reported to the Environment Agency on 13 September at 1740. Environment Agency officers attended the incident and observed that the diesel appeared iridescent on the water. As a result it would not have had any impact on fish stocks, birds or other wildlife. The Environment Agency officers who attended the incident did not observe any impact on birds in the vicinity of the diesel.
The Environment Agency assesses incidents according to their potential to cause environmental harm and the enforcement response depends on this classification. This incident was classified as a ““category 3”” incident, to which the normal enforcement response is a warning letter.
The Environment Agency notified the relevant water companies of the incident on the evening of 13 September at 1845. However, there was no evidence at that time to confirm that the abstractions would be affected. The water companies responded by stopping abstraction until approximately 1000 the following morning. Shortly after this time the Environment Agency informed the water companies that no diesel was on the river and abstraction then began immediately.
We have no plans to review the existing powers. The Environment Agency has power to prevent or remedy pollution of controlled waters through the issue of notices under The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999. These regulations enable the Environment Agency to serve ““works notices”” on polluters or potential polluters. A works notice will specify works or operations which the recipient of the notice must carry out where pollution has already taken place to waters, or measures to take to prevent pollution occurring. Any costs associated with preventive or remedial works would be a matter for the recipient of the notice. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of a works notice is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction (magistrates’ court) to a fine of up to £20,000 and/or up to three months’ imprisonment, and on conviction on indictment (Crown Court) to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment.
Subjects
Environment Agency; Pollution; Powers; Pollution control; Water; Wildlife; Water abstraction; Diesel; Maidenhead; River Thames
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
5376; 695 c8-10WA
House
House of Lords
Whether they will review the powers available to the Environment Agency for the prevention of diesel pollution of rivers with a view to including the removal of offending equipment at a cost to those responsible; and
Whether they will review the powers available to the Environment Agency for the prevention of diesel pollution of rivers with a view to including the removal of offending equipment at a cost to those responsible; and
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 October 2007
The leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead was first reported to the Environment Agency on 13 September at 1740. Environment Agency officers attended the incident and observed that the diesel appeared iridescent on the water. As a result it would not have had any impact on fish stocks, birds or other wildlife. The Environment Agency officers who attended the incident did not observe any impact on birds in the vicinity of the diesel.
The Environment Agency assesses incidents according to their potential to cause environmental harm and the enforcement response depends on this classification. This incident was classified as a ““category 3”” incident, to which the normal enforcement response is a warning letter.
The Environment Agency notified the relevant water companies of the incident on the evening of 13 September at 1845. However, there was no evidence at that time to confirm that the abstractions would be affected. The water companies responded by stopping abstraction until approximately 1000 the following morning. Shortly after this time the Environment Agency informed the water companies that no diesel was on the river and abstraction then began immediately.
We have no plans to review the existing powers. The Environment Agency has power to prevent or remedy pollution of controlled waters through the issue of notices under The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999. These regulations enable the Environment Agency to serve ““works notices”” on polluters or potential polluters. A works notice will specify works or operations which the recipient of the notice must carry out where pollution has already taken place to waters, or measures to take to prevent pollution occurring. Any costs associated with preventive or remedial works would be a matter for the recipient of the notice. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of a works notice is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction (magistrates’ court) to a fine of up to £20,000 and/or up to three months’ imprisonment, and on conviction on indictment (Crown Court) to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment.
Subjects
Environment Agency; Pollution; Powers; Pollution control; Water; Wildlife; Water abstraction; Diesel; Maidenhead; River Thames
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
5377; 695 c8-10WA
House
House of Lords
On what date and at what time the leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead during the week of 10 September was first reported to the Environment Agency.
On what date and at what time the leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead during the week of 10 September was first reported to the Environment Agency.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 October 2007
The leak of diesel into the River Thames at Maidenhead was first reported to the Environment Agency on 13 September at 1740. Environment Agency officers attended the incident and observed that the diesel appeared iridescent on the water. As a result it would not have had any impact on fish stocks, birds or other wildlife. The Environment Agency officers who attended the incident did not observe any impact on birds in the vicinity of the diesel.
The Environment Agency assesses incidents according to their potential to cause environmental harm and the enforcement response depends on this classification. This incident was classified as a ““category 3”” incident, to which the normal enforcement response is a warning letter.
The Environment Agency notified the relevant water companies of the incident on the evening of 13 September at 1845. However, there was no evidence at that time to confirm that the abstractions would be affected. The water companies responded by stopping abstraction until approximately 1000 the following morning. Shortly after this time the Environment Agency informed the water companies that no diesel was on the river and abstraction then began immediately.
We have no plans to review the existing powers. The Environment Agency has power to prevent or remedy pollution of controlled waters through the issue of notices under The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999. These regulations enable the Environment Agency to serve ““works notices”” on polluters or potential polluters. A works notice will specify works or operations which the recipient of the notice must carry out where pollution has already taken place to waters, or measures to take to prevent pollution occurring. Any costs associated with preventive or remedial works would be a matter for the recipient of the notice. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of a works notice is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction (magistrates’ court) to a fine of up to £20,000 and/or up to three months’ imprisonment, and on conviction on indictment (Crown Court) to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years’ imprisonment.
Subjects
Environment Agency; Pollution; Powers; Pollution control; Water; Wildlife; Water abstraction; Diesel; Maidenhead; River Thames
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
5378; 695 c8-10WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is it not an abuse of the powers of this House when the Government are forced to back down on the eve of Prorogation, as happened on a single occasion last year?
My Lords, is it not an abuse of the powers of this House when the Government are forced to back down on the eve of Prorogation, as happened on a single occasion last year?
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
14 June 2006
My Lords, with regard to ping-pong and issues between the two places, we are a scrutinising and revising Chamber. The right course is for the other place to consider what we say and, as much as possible, for us to reach agreement on the issues. That is what we almost invariably succeed in doing. Normally, the result is that there is better legislation.
Subjects
House of Lords; Powers
Date
14 June 2006
Reference
683 c203-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is it not a fact that behind every story there is a byline? It may be for the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, to contact the journalists responsible for writing these stories.
My Lords, is it not a fact that behind every story there is a byline? It may be for the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, to contact the journalists responsible for writing these stories.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
8 June 2005
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, needs advice from the Government Front Bench on the strategy he should pursue, but what he has done this afternoon is draw attention to an important issue. The Press Complaints Commission undertakes inquiries from sources of complaint, but inevitably the weight of its work relates to people who complain directly when they are involved. I am sure we all agree that that should be so.
Subjects
Powers; Newspaper press; Misrepresentation; Press Complaints Commission
Date
8 June 2005
Reference
672 c871
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
1st supplementary on the procedure for affirmative instruments.
1st supplementary on the procedure for affirmative instruments.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
4 February 2004
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Legislation; Powers; Parliamentary scrutiny; Statutory instruments
Date
4 February 2004
Reference
657 c673-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they will review the relative powers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in relation to legislation.
Whether they will review the relative powers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in relation to legislation.
Asked by
Lord Campbell-Savours
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Filkin
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
4 February 2004
Answered on
4 February 2004
Subjects
Legislative process; House of Lords; House of Commons; Legislation; Powers; Parliamentary scrutiny; Statutory instruments
Date
4 February 2004
Reference
657 c673-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords