Proceeding contribution from Greg Knight (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]
The point about fees and costs cuts both ways, because if we allow the Bills to proceed, the promoters would no doubt argue that the Standing Orders state:""The bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last session or the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages, and no new fees shall be charged to those stages."" So the promoters could argue that they are trying to be cost-effective in not leaving the matter in abeyance by waiting to hear what the Government say and starting again at a later stage.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 491 c182
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:01:56 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548421
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548421
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548421