Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 April 2009. It occurred during Legislative debate on Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords].


Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]

I am not sure that revivals normally take place; it is a question of judgment. I think that there is a precedent, which has been cited, to the effect that if a Bill has not received its Second Reading during the whole of one of our parliamentary Sessions, it would prima facie not be right for that Bill to be the subject of a carry-over motion or a revival motion. I accept that that constraint does not apply to these two Bills, although it may have some relevance to the subsequent debate. It is quite clear from examining the private business Standing Orders that this is a matter of discretion for the House. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I objected to the carry-over motion that was put forward at the end of the last Session in respect of the Northern Bank Bill. I objected to the Bill and made it clear to its promoters that it was not going to be a straightforward tick-in-the-box procedure, and they decided to withdraw it. They recognised that it had not made any progress during the Session, and implicitly recognised that they needed to go back to the drawing board to see whether the Bill was still relevant.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
491 c174 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Costs Direct selling Bournemouth Licensing Greater Manchester Local government Manchester City Council Street trading Bournemouth Borough Council
Legislation
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill (HL) 2006-07 to 2009-10
Manchester City Council Bill (HL) 2006-07 to 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk