← Back to MPs
Mr David Atkinson

Mr David Atkinson

CON Conservative Former MP
Last served Bournemouth East (1977-11-24 – 2005-05-05)
68
Total votes
29
Ayes
39
Noes
0
Other

Parliamentary History

24 Nov 1977 – 5 May 2005 (27 yrs 5 mo)

Voting trends (most recent 12 months of activity)

Voting record

March 2005 4 votes
Division Date Vote
Clause 78, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Government amendments Nos. 271 to 275 made. Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Government amendments Nos. 276, 612, 277, 278, 613, 279 and 614 made. Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 1 Mar 2005 NO
It is absolutely right that Lord Chancellors have no such statutory restriction, but equally, because they are judges they are in fact constrained in what they can do when they cease to hold that office. But not in a ministerial context, and I am surprised that— [Interruption.] Statutorily, there is no such bar on former Lord Chancellors holding other ministerial posts. I shall elaborate on some o... 1 Mar 2005 AYE
"duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible." I may add that the following sentence is: "So help me God." The Lord Chancellor will certainly need divine assistance if he is to fulfil that obligation. I made the point in an intervention that it would be extraordinary to single out the Lord Chancellor to swear an oath to... 1 Mar 2005 AYE
Government new schedule 3— Renaming of the Supreme Courts of England and Wales and Northern Ireland . Government amendments Nos. 651 to 666. This group of amendments gives effect in part to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Bill in the other place that the supreme court of England and Wales and the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland should be renamed and, when necessa... 1 Mar 2005 NO
February 2005 24 votes
Division Date Vote
There is a schedule that explains how control orders work, but we have not had a moment—not even a minute—to discuss it. These are serious matters, but we have not taken them seriously. I fully respect my hon. Friend's views and opinions, but we have not scrutinised a hugely important Bill. We have not done ourselves credit. We shall not reach a solution by opposing each other. The Government must... 28 Feb 2005 NO
Question accordingly negatived. Motion made, and Question put , That clauses 1 to 13 stand part of the Bill, and That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill:— 28 Feb 2005 NO
(a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; (b) conduct which knowingly facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so; and (c) conduct which knowingly gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so. (11) Evidence established to have been obtained under tortur... 28 Feb 2005 AYE
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although there has been some latitude, he is again going very wide of the amendments under discussion. I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs. Heal. Let me ask the Home Secretary a question that I asked the Minister when I thought that she would respond to this brief debate. I urge the Home Secretary to tell us that we will have a proper chance to discuss ame... 28 Feb 2005 AYE
I suggest to the Minister that we need not have reached this situation in the first place. This problem has existed for three years and the Liberal Democrats have consistently pointed out that the Government should have tackled it during that time, rather than leaving it until a point at which, because of a Law Lords judgment, we are faced with such a short time scale. It cannot be right that we h... 28 Feb 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83(A) , 23 Feb 2005 NO
Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading) :— 23 Feb 2005 NO
As to the contribution of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) , does he accept that there is a serious threat, which I thought was fairly common ground? Does he accept that some people cannot be prosecuted through a conventional legal system? Does he accept that detention in prison under part 4 is not sustainable in the light of the Law Lords' judgment? Frankly, in those circumstances, what w... 23 Feb 2005 AYE
That is not the comfort zone that I was seeking concerning the interpretation of this clause. It is my understanding that the Minister is actually saying that the aggravation factor will not apply if, for example, the children are at a school premises and attending a Sunday school. indicated dissent. The Minister could intervene to tell me that such children would be protected while attending such... 22 Feb 2005 AYE
We should be fortunate and have three quarters of an hour, if that is fortunate. I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was not able to get the Government amendments through PDVN, as I was. I am delighted that, for once, in a technological sense, things seem to be working better in Orkney and Shetland than in Chesham and Amersham. My hon. Friend is of course correct... 22 Feb 2005 NO
Question accordingly negatived. Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour. Amendment proposed : No. 29, page 46, line 31, at end insert 21 Feb 2005 AYE
It is a complex issue. We need carrots and sticks to ensure that people do not constantly have to pay this money. London Liberal Democrats have suggested the introduction of a penny-a-pack levy on manufacturers, and I understand that Westminster council—we heard in Committee how much money it has spent—agrees with that. Does the hon. Lady agree that a company that started entirely afresh in market... 21 Feb 2005 AYE
The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in his usual robust manner. I was one of those who spoke on Second Reading and who made, according to him, an ill-informed contribution. Whether he meant my contribution I am not sure, but I was chief executive of the largest animal welfare charity in Britain, so I understand a bit m... 21 Feb 2005 NO
"May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether he accepts that it is for those who are in favour of the card to make a case for it, not the other way round? Secondly, will he confirm that the card will be little or no use in combating terrorism? Thirdly, given the unhappy history . . . of Government information technology projects, are we not entitled to be sceptical about some of the claims made... 10 Feb 2005 AYE
Clause 11 contains the power to require information for validating the register. It is enormously important because it is crucial to the operation of the scheme, but it has not been debated. Clause 11(1) places a duty on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of verifying an individual's entry on the register. Not unreasonably, we would like to discuss that duty... 10 Feb 2005 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:— 4 Feb 2005 AYE
There is a phrase in the English language, "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". That is a classic example of something being grossly disproportionate in its use, and that in fact is what we are talking about today—a Bill that is grossly disproportionate to the problems that it pretends to address, and which I believe exists for no reason other than to provide camouflage for an election campaign.... 4 Feb 2005 AYE
I should like to say a few words in support of both new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) sends his apologies as he is unable to attend. He was immersed in the detail of the Bill and supported its broad outlines. I will deal with the Bill's final stages but, as a newcomer, I lack his depth of understanding. The new clauses are constructive and well worth supporting. There ar... 3 Feb 2005 AYE
I want the Paymaster General to become an advocate for a change— Order. Before we proceed, let me say that general discussion about programming is not appropriate. The debate is about programming for this particular Bill. Indeed, and I wish to keep to that. My right hon. Friend is making a powerful and cogent case, but does he not accept that when Government impose timetables unnecessarily—when th... 3 Feb 2005 NO
I am aware that the Minister is keen to respond even in the limited time we have to discuss the limited time that we have to discuss the Bill on Report. I have a few brief points. The Minister said that the Government held the debate today so that they could listen to what was said. She has heard from across the House blanket condemnation of the motion. Will she now withdraw it? No, I will not. I ... 3 Feb 2005 NO
"be removed or suspended except after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice." It would defy my understanding of the rules of debate if I were not allowed to argue that the question of removal or suspension should include reference to clause 106(3). In conclusion, the words "neglect of duty" have been omitted from that subsection, although the draftsman included the words "misbehaviour or inabil... 1 Feb 2005 AYE
I only want to intervene briefly to say that the obverse could apply. If the tribunal has made that recommendation, it would be a peculiar decision by any member of the Executive, whether Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor, to go against the advice. That is properly a matter for a subsequent clause, however. The hon. Gentleman says that it would be a peculiar Prime Minister. It is not unknown to ha... 1 Feb 2005 NO
The input of the current Law Lords is highly valued in the scrutiny of legislation, particularly in Committee, where they bring their technical experience of interpreting legislation. In addition, they contribute informed criticism on social issues, drawing on their practical experience in the courts. They also help to promote the type of legal reform measures that can sometimes be a low legislati... 1 Feb 2005 AYE
I am a practising solicitor and, technically, a solicitor of the Supreme Court. The Minister may wish to consider the fair point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that there are complications surrounding the use of the words "supreme court". Those will need to be dealt with if the Bill is passed in its current state. The arguments against the creation of th... 1 Feb 2005 AYE
January 2005 2 votes
Division Date Vote
or—and it is either/or so obviously one does not have to be a High Court judge—to have "practised as a qualifying practitioner . . . for at least 12 years". Under clause 22, a qualifying practitioner must have "a Supreme Court qualification" under section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which states that a person must have rights of audience in all the proceedings of the Supreme Cour... 31 Jan 2005 AYE
I congratulate the Select Committee on footnote 21, which deals with the relevant recommendation and states: "Nothing in the use of the word "Lord" necessarily indicates membership of the House of Lords: eg Lord President of the Council and Lord Privy Seal have frequently been members of the House of Commons." Clearly, the title is not important. My right hon. Friend's Committee may well recall th... 31 Jan 2005 AYE
Page 2/3