← Back to MPs
Mr Richard Caborn

Mr Richard Caborn

LAB Labour Former MP
Last served Sheffield Central (1983-06-09 – 2010-05-06)
17.0
Progressive
12 coded votes
845
Total votes
359
Ayes
486
Noes
0
Other

Parliamentary History

9 Jun 1983 – 6 May 2010 (26 yrs 10 mo)

Ideology spectrum

17.0
ProgressiveCentreConservative

Progressive — based on 12 coded votes across 1 axes (1% coverage).

Policy axis scores

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

Climate / energy 17
Medium confidence 12 votes

Voting trends (most recent 12 months of activity)

Voting record

December 2009 1 votes
Division Date Vote
Division 6 1 Dec 2009 AYE
November 2009 29 votes
Division Date Vote
The third crucial element of the Bill is remuneration. The Bill relates to improved corporate governance, which goes hand in hand with a strengthened regulatory framework. There is general consensus that remuneration practices in the financial services sector were a contributory factor in the recent financial crisis. That is why we are taking decisive action to tackle remuneration practices that i... 30 Nov 2009 AYE
Division 5 30 Nov 2009 AYE
Division 4 26 Nov 2009 NO
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) described the fag end of a Parliament that we are undoubtedly in at the moment. As we all know, we have reached the stage whereby the Government are pointlessly going into a last six months because they cannot call an election with any confidence of winning at the time that they normally would. We therefore have to fill the... 26 Nov 2009 NO
Division 1 25 Nov 2009 AYE
Division 2 25 Nov 2009 NO
I think that I have made my point. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to recognise that I have given him 100 per cent. reassurance about the purpose of paragraph 3. I hope that we can make the rest of this debate very short, and get on to the next issue. That concern has boiled down to the situation before us, where it is accepted that there might be an inquiry-rather than an inquest-and, there... 12 Nov 2009 NO
The paragraph in question is paragraph 3 of schedule 1. The paragraph is about suspensions pending inquiry under the 2005 Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is covered by the drafting in that paragraph, so there is absolutely a belt-and-braces approach. "has indicated approval to the Lord Chancellor, for the purposes of this paragraph". The purposes of that paragraph—paragraph 3 to schedu... 12 Nov 2009 NO
I agree that we cannot run hundreds or thousands of academies from Whitehall or Westminster. Has the Minister any objection to local authorities performance-managing academies? In our discussions, local authorities constantly talk to us about the performance of schools in their areas. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have said just recently that what he suggests is not acceptable for the academ... 11 Nov 2009 NO
We have introduced the YPLA simply because, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, it simply is not sustainable for the Department to run academies from the centre and to become, in essence, a national local authority for hundreds and hundreds of them. If there were only a few academies, such an arrangement might be appropriate, but as we expect to have 400 of them in a couple of years' time, it simp... 11 Nov 2009 NO
I am not sure where that leaves aims for a Digital Britain. The Home Office paper, "Protecting the public in a changing communications environment", would better serve the public by enabling roaming than by some of the other activities planned for e-mails and such like. Now, a burden is placed on the consumer to find the ability to access more than one network. Consumers sometimes have to purchase... 11 Nov 2009 AYE
Given that the staff working at the sharp end do not want to be involved in mandatory sanctions for women with children up to the age of three, why does my hon. Friend think that Ministers are so wedded to those mandatory sanctions? They have not explained themselves and my hon. Friend might be able to shed some light on this issue. I do not accept that sanctions are necessary. All that can be sai... 10 Nov 2009 AYE
I do not accept that sanctions are necessary. All that can be said for them is that they provide a structure for the relationship, because staff cannot simply give up the attempt to make contact; they must continue the encouragement. That is the only beneficial aspect of a sanctions programme that I can see, and if it is to be used so rarely, why invoke it? In an earlier intervention, which was ra... 10 Nov 2009 AYE
Indeed, he is capable of doing so. Will the hon. Lady give way? I will in a moment. There is therefore no need for this saving provision on freedom of expression. The provision might be harmful because it might well give some comfort to those people who wish to stir up hatred and who wish intentionally to use threatening words to stir up hatred. They might well be able to argue that it is simply a... 9 Nov 2009 AYE
Leaving aside the example of drunkenness that has been given, as we are talking about sexual infidelity, is it not true that we are not talking about somebody who intended to kill or who was out for revenge? We are talking about someone who snapped and lost control, and a jury should therefore have all the facts. The hon. Gentleman sums it up exactly. Somebody snaps and loses control, and whether ... 9 Nov 2009 AYE
I agree, and as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have today been invited by the Home Secretary to extend the remit of the advisory committee to look at the possibility of admitting intercept evidence in coroners' inquests. I cannot speak for the right hon. Gentleman, but I would happily agree to the remit of the committee being widened in that way. With the leave of the House, I wish to repl... 9 Nov 2009 NO
It is tempting on these occasions to load the IPC with a huge number of responsibilities. Part of what I have tried to set out is a balance of powers, so that it is the role of Government to set out need, get the skills strategy right and obtain the investment. The job of the IPC is to make a specific judgment about specific developments. That said, I am sympathetic to the point my hon. Friend mak... 9 Nov 2009 AYE
Question accordingly agreed to. Lords amendment 59 disagreed to. 9 Nov 2009 AYE
It is welcome that the Government are looking at this. However, I hope the Minister will be able to say in winding up that they have stopped looking and are now going to start doing, because I do not think there is opposition to this anywhere in the House. The police may object, because they want the ability to start questioning anyone who insults anyone else short of being threatening or abusive,... 9 Nov 2009 AYE
"where D acted principally out of a desire". The key phrase is "acted principally". The jury decides whether someone acted principally out of the various matters referred to in the amendment. The Minister's problem with the subjective nature of "perceived" does not arise unless the jury thinks that that is the principal reason. No reasonable jury could possible believe that in the circumstances sh... 9 Nov 2009 AYE
I will be very brief—briefer than I would otherwise be—one reason being that like many Members of the House, I would like to hear the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) , if, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were minded to call him at any stage. In that hope, I will be as brief as I can be. It is exactly the same with a coroner's inquest. If somebody ha... 9 Nov 2009 NO
We have made clear that on the question of public subsidy for nuclear—it was clear in the White Paper produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) —we are not going to provide public subsidy for the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations. Motion made, and Question put forthwith ( Standing Order No. 83A ), 9 Nov 2009 AYE
Division 241 9 Nov 2009 NO
We have had a useful debate, and we have all managed to get on record the importance of the complete discretion and independence of the CAG. Question put and agreed to. Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. I want to ask about the necessity of this clause. The Father of the House might correct me, but I do not remember i... 4 Nov 2009 NO
My problem is that it is very difficult to compare costs. I intervened on the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps rashly, he insisted that he was comparing like with like. I ask him to think again. It is very difficult to make reliable comparisons for exactly the reason that has been given by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) . There is no like-for-like comparison that we have been able t... 4 Nov 2009 NO
All I seek to do is point out to the Minister that we are establishing a panoply of corporate governance that could lead to confusion in the NAO, when all that is required is the scrutiny of those two aspects: the longevity of appointment, about which there is no disagreement at all; and, the board's oversight of expenses and NAO organisation, which may be rather more demanding than was intended o... 4 Nov 2009 NO
That takes us back to the debates that we had earlier this afternoon and the reluctance, it would seem, of the Executive entirely to let go of matters that are within their power. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that in the long term that is precisely what the Government intend to do. Of course we must get value for money, which is exactly what I said. As I shall describe in a mom... 4 Nov 2009 NO
I shall wait for inspiration-but there does not seem to be any great transfer of power in the amendment at all. The right way to address the concerns is to have a proper response to the Calman commission in the round. If the amendment is pushed to a vote and Members vote against it, they will not be voting against Calman; they will be voting for a proper considered response to the whole report. I ... 3 Nov 2009 NO
I shall attempt to answer the question, and then my right hon. Friend might provide a better answer. It seems to me that an appointment not on merit would be an appointment on political grounds, and I cannot see under what circumstances there could be an appointment to GCHQ on political grounds. My right hon. Friend might enlighten us. I was going to put it to my hon. Friend that I was as baffled ... 3 Nov 2009 NO
Page 4/29