Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 October 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Canterbury City Council Bill.
Canterbury City Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
My hon. Friend has made a good point. One cannot have it both ways, but that is what Canterbury city council seems to want to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury also asserted that many pedlars were operating with certificates containing false addresses, but there is no evidence of that. I will give way to my hon. Friend if he can produce any evidence that a pedlar in Canterbury has used a certificate containing a false address, and can tell us whether, if that has happened, it has resulted in that person's prosecution. Perhaps this is another of the myths being peddled by those who are against pedlars—[Laughter.] I apologise for that totally unintentional pun. There is, therefore, a difference between the Canterbury Bill and the other Bills, and I hope that in the time before—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 481 c1001
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Canterbury City Council Touting Street trading Canterbury
- Legislation
- Canterbury City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:15:46 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504469
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504469
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504469