Skip to main content

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

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on the procedural matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has been roaming around a little bit. I am sure that he is not calling into question the way in which the Chairman of Ways and Means brought forward the motion, which of course was perfectly proper. However, the point that my hon. Friend is making, as I understand it—forgive me if my knowledge of procedure is not all that it might be—is that there are differences between the various Bills that the motion would revive. Some might be better than others and some have gone further than others in their process through Parliament. I am not sure whether it is allowable under the procedures, but would it not be sensible to allow several Divisions on the four Bills that we are considering?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
491 c194 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Related items
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