Proceeding contribution from James Gray (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 April 2009. It occurred during Legislative debate on Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill.
Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am asking a foolish question as a relative novice at these procedural matters. Is it not odd that although the Bills whose revival we are discussing reached different stages of their lives in the last Session, they should all be brought together in a single revival motion? It is a sort of hybrid motion, bringing together some rather good things that are more advanced in their considerations with some things that are bad. Procedurally, would it not have been better had the promoters brought forward different motions so that it was possible to consider each Bill separately?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 491 c193
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Canterbury City Council Licensing Leeds Local government Nottingham Nottingham City Council Reading Borough Council Reading (Berkshire) Touting Street trading Leeds City Council Canterbury
- Legislation
- Canterbury City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Leeds City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Nottingham City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Reading Borough Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:01:45 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548445
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548445
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548445