← Back to MPs
Mr David Chaytor

Mr David Chaytor

IND Independent Former MP
Last served Bury North (1997-05-01 – 2010-05-06)
22.0
Progressive
18 coded votes
926
Total votes
396
Ayes
530
Noes
0
Other

Parliamentary History

1 May 1997 – 6 May 2010 (13 yrs)

Ideology spectrum

22.0
ProgressiveCentreConservative

Progressive — based on 18 coded votes across 1 axes (2% coverage).

Policy axis scores

0 = progressive, 50 = centre, 100 = conservative. Based on coded division votes.

Climate / energy 22
Medium confidence 18 votes

Voting trends (most recent 12 months of activity)

Voting record

March 2009 29 votes
Division Date Vote
Question accordingly negatived. Question put forthwith ( Standing Order No. 31(2) ), That the proposed words be there added. 25 Mar 2009 AYE
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) , with whom I often disagree, brought home the gravity of the decisions with which we were all confronted back in 2003 by the simple act of reading out the names this afternoon of all of our people who died in the operation in Iraq. Acknowledging that gravity is something that unites the House. A couple of other things also unite the House. ... 25 Mar 2009 NO
Division 87 24 Mar 2009 AYE
Government amendment 131. We come to the anonymous witnesses part of the Bill. Members will recall that the anonymous witness provisions in the existing law passed through the House in one day last year, and through the other place in two days. At that point, we were promised proper consideration of the provisions in a full debate, in a full Bill. We are now left with a Report stage, effectively o... 24 Mar 2009 NO
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough says that we are suffering from them, but I was about to say that my mistakes pale into insignificance when compared with the triumphs of this Administration, of whom I have been an adornment. Name the triumphs! Another hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench asks me to name the triumphs. I could name a number of them, but I shall name just one. Acco... 24 Mar 2009 NO
The hon. Gentleman, as always, puts the argument so eloquently that I simply endorse what he says. Does my hon. Friend agree—I assume she does, as she will have signed off the information given by the Government at the time of this debate—that if the removal of the free speech clause will not affect the threshold of the offence, logically its retention cannot affect the threshold of the offence ei... 24 Mar 2009 NO
Whenever someone says that there are cases where the jury has to be excluded, they never come up with a convincing example. The one example of a case where the process is frozen, which the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned, is one that has nothing to do with national security. However, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned, in that case things seem to have gone very badly wrong le... 23 Mar 2009 NO
Numerous constituents have raised with me such issues as assisted suicide, which has attracted a great deal of interest. Constituents on both sides of the argument have urged me to support their views. They expect these matters to be debated. My hon. Friend is making a very good case. That is exactly the point: our constituents expect us to be debating the issues, and they do not understand why we... 23 Mar 2009 AYE
Question accordingly negatived. Question put forthwith (Standing Order 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added. 18 Mar 2009 AYE
Does my hon. Friend find it strange that the Conservatives in opposition now castigate the Government for proposing to double the national debt in the light of the worst world recession since 1946, yet the previous Conservative Government doubled the national debt when there was not such a deep world recession at all? They were the profligate ones, whereas we have had to pick up the pieces and pay... 18 Mar 2009 NO
We took evidence in Committee, and I asked about what would happen to the kids of drug addicts if the parents' benefits were cut. One charity that supported conditionality could not answer that question. In Committee, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform said that the ideas about what would happen were fatuous and vacuous. He has been using such words quite a lot recently, and his resort... 17 Mar 2009 AYE
Question accordingly negatived. Amendment proposed : 35, page 4, line 22 , at end insert— 17 Mar 2009 NO
Well, it is not amateur dramatics, as the hon. Gentleman says; this is about trying to assist blind people and it depends on what side of the argument one is on. In my role as Minister for disabled people, I have also been able to voice my support for this measure. Indeed, when I spoke at the lobby that I mentioned, I gave an unequivocal nod towards the Government's commitment to it, and my right ... 17 Mar 2009 NO
My right hon. Friend's interpretation of the views that I and other Labour Members expressed is a travesty. We are saying that the voluntary approach has been shown to be more effective in engaging people in the world of work, and we should pursue that approach. We are saying that any schemes that involve sanctions or people losing their benefit should be subject to a pilot scheme that compares th... 17 Mar 2009 NO
Question accordingly agreed to. On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you think that it sets a good example to members of the Youth Parliament that the Government have chosen to curtail debate in this Parliament on this issue? The decision about the closure motion is for the occupant of the Chair. Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made. 16 Mar 2009 NO
The hon. Gentleman appears to be speculating that every Labour MP will support the Government. I do not know whether they will or not; that is a matter for them. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has the great advantage of being the only member of his party in this House, thus avoiding a split. In fact, I am not a member of any political party; I am a totally independent MP and therefore I speak and w... 16 Mar 2009 AYE
Division 73 16 Mar 2009 AYE
I am pleased that the Minister is admitting that we will now be pulling away from the system that exists in this country, which did not seem to come across in his earlier remarks, but who is the DPP going to answer to? The DPP will be answerable to the Assembly for the use of resources and the administration of its office—that is very clear—but not for individual prosecution decisions, which are e... 4 Mar 2009 NO
If the Secretary of State wants to agree to it, it may not have to go to a vote; otherwise, I will press it. I fear that I will have to disappoint the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) . I hate also to disappoint the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) . I made my argument today in sorrow, not in anger. Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the validity of the points that... 4 Mar 2009 NO
I was reassured by the statement of the Deputy Leader of the House on the record that notwithstanding anything that may be before the House this evening, the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are not affected. It was enormously helpful to have that on the record, endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for... 3 Mar 2009 AYE
Division 51 3 Mar 2009 AYE
"A company has a relevant non-lending relationship if— (a) the company stands, or has stood, in the position of a creditor or debtor in relation to a money debt, (b) the money debt did not arise from a transaction for the lending of money...and (c) the money debt is one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (2)." We then go through five other subsections to clause 479 to try to wrestle with the com... 3 Mar 2009 AYE
Division 49 3 Mar 2009 AYE
I should first say that the term "acting Speaker" is certainly not in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 83E(2)(c) speaks of "The question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate decision". That is clear. Subsection (3) states: "On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be adde... 2 Mar 2009 AYE
Question accordingly agreed to. Amendment 140 agreed to. On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that we voted on new clause 23 although it had never been moved. Could we vote on my amendments 84 and 85, which were supported by 216 Members of Parliament? I think we should vote on those amendments. 2 Mar 2009 AYE
Question accordingly agreed to. New clause 23 added to the Bill. 2 Mar 2009 AYE
(7) Before rule 54 there is inserted— "Destruction of home address forms 53A The returning officer shall destroy each candidate's home address form— (a) on the next working day following the 21st day after the officer has returned the name of the member elected; or (b) if an election petition questioning the election or return is presented before that day, on the next working day following the con... 2 Mar 2009 AYE
Amendment 96, page 6, line 7, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£7,500'. Amendment 97, page 6, line 18, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£7,500'. Amendment 98, page 6, line 35, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£1,500'. Amendment 99, page 6, line 35, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£7,500'.— (Mark Tami.) Amendment proposed: 121, page 6, line 38, at end insert— 2 Mar 2009 NO
This has been a very interesting debate. The proceedings of the Neill committee have been set out in some detail, so I shall not repeat them. The clause would end the big donor culture at a stroke. Some may argue for a cap of less than £50,000. I notice that the Liberal Democrats started to do that today. That, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, is a flat contradiction of the Liberal party policy... 2 Mar 2009 NO
Page 5/31