Results 1-20 of 2,179 for (in the 'Commons debates' OR in the 'Westminster Hall debates' OR in the 'Lords debates' OR in the 'Northern Ireland Assembly debates') speaker:Menzies Campbell

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Afghanistan and Pakistan (14 Oct 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: After eight years, what confidence can we have that the strategy announced by the Prime Minister today has a better chance of success than the strategies previously announced by this Government?

Bills Presented: Afghanistan and Pakistan (16 Jul 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke approvingly of the quality of medical services now available. Those who have the privilege of going to the hospital at Selly Oak or the rehabilitation centre at Headley Court will see ample evidence of that medical skill, but they will also see extraordinary illustrations of courage and a determination to overcome adversity from the patients in...

Bills Presented: Afghanistan and Pakistan (16 Jul 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: It might also help my hon. Friend, in his consideration of the matter, to know that the defensive aids available to helicopters are much more sophisticated now than they were during the Soviet invasion and occupation.

Bills Presented: Afghanistan and Pakistan (16 Jul 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: Surely the risk is that, because the burden is not being shared properly, a two-tier NATO might emerge, in which some countries are willing to face the mud—or, in this case, the sand and the bullets—but others are not. Some countries send their troops to operate under NATO command, but others send theirs subject to such caveats that their effectiveness is very substantially prejudiced.

Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day]: US-UK Extradition Treaty (15 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: How would a proper relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States be prejudiced if both countries had to meet the same standard—probable cause?

Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day]: US-UK Extradition Treaty (15 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason for that was that the Irish lobby in the United States was able to exercise such pressure over the Senate that it declined to ratify, on the grounds that suspected Irish terrorists might be extradited to the United Kingdom to face prosecution?

Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day]: US-UK Extradition Treaty (15 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: The Home Secretary has not dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). Does he accept that Baroness Scotland said this in the other place: "That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that."? That was her opinion then. Does he still understand it to be her opinion now?

Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day]: US-UK Extradition Treaty (15 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: If the Home Secretary is interested in the experience of the NatWest three, who include Mr. Gary Mulgrew, he should consult his fellow Labour party member, Mrs. Trish Godman, who is an MSP and the mother of Mr. Mulgrew. I have kept in touch with her, as I did with Mr. Mulgrew during his imprisonment. She has made it clear, as indeed has he, that such was the nature of the prosecution and the...

Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day]: US-UK Extradition Treaty (15 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has now acknowledged that, in considering this matter, we should consider issues of principle. Would not a reasonable principle to take into account—a principle that might have formed part of his motion—be that the constitutional position of British citizens under the extradition treaty should be no less strong than the constitutional position of American citizens?

Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day]: US-UK Extradition Treaty (15 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I have been interested in this matter since 2003. I have sought an explanation, including from the former Prime Minister, of why the UK was willing to enter into a treaty that disadvantaged British citizens to the advantage of American citizens. I have received no such explanation, but may I suggest that it may well be that in...

Oral Answers to Questions — Defence: Afghanistan (13 Jul 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: No one denies that these are difficult and dangerous operations, but surely that does not absolve us of the responsibility to do everything in our power to minimise casualties. Is not the fundamental problem for the Government the fact that there is no comprehensive strategy to deal with the military, political, economic and narcotics issues, and that until a comprehensive strategy is agreed...

Energy and Climate Change: Newspapers (Surveillance Methods) (9 Jul 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: Since the Leader of the House is on the Treasury Bench, and since she has a responsibility to the House as a whole, may we have an undertaking that consideration will be given to whether any breach of privilege arises on this occasion?

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Topical Questions (6 Jul 2009)

Menzies Campbell: But there is an area where the Secretary of State has discretion, and that is in relation to the Government's policy towards extradition. Why are we still sending people to the United States under a one-sided extradition treaty? Is it not now time to renegotiate that treaty so as to provide for extradition between our two countries that is firmly based on the principle of reciprocity?

Oral Answers to Questions — Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Topical Questions (30 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: Last week, the Foreign Secretary repeated the Prime Minister's claim that the Iraq inquiry had not been set up to establish civil or criminal liability. Does that mean that the Government propose to grant legal immunity to any witness who gives evidence to the inquiry—and if so, by what means?

Oral Answers to Questions — Work and Pensions: Building Britain's Future (29 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: In a statement entitled "Building Britain's Future" is not the absence of any reference to defence policy and its financial implications for the British economy a significant omission? Do the Government not now accept that there is an overwhelming and urgent need for a full-scale defence review, to bring commitments and resources into balance?

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: If the House resolves to give the inquiry the authority to compel witnesses and to put them on oath, that is exercisable against any witness. Why is the House not being asked to provide that safeguard, so that the inquiry commands public confidence?

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: Not for the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I believe that the decision to join the United States in an illegal war against Iraq was based upon a flawed premise and has done catastrophic damage to British interests. That may well disqualify me from membership of a committee of investigation, but it most...

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: I am not sure that I am going to be entirely helpful to my hon. Friend, for which I hope that he will forgive me. The material part of the quotation that he read was the words "by consent". In those circumstances, if a witness came before something that might not be proceedings in the technical sense and he or she declined to give consent, clearly the provisions of the statute to which he...

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Opposition Day — [14th allotted day]: Iraq Inquiry (24 Jun 2009) has video

Menzies Campbell: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, if I am still allowed to call him that. Before he leaves the question of evidence on oath, does he understand that Sir John does not have the power to put witnesses on oath? He might have that power if this were an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, or if the House conferred it upon him. That is all the more reason for the procedures to be...