Proceeding contribution from Martin Salter (Labour) 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
To revert to a point that I tried to make earlier, is not it the case that the hon. Gentleman's discussions with Reading borough council about the activities of pedlars who act effectively as stallholders—the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned that—showed that the council was prepared to negotiate and be flexible? That is an argument not for opposing the revival motion, but for allowing it to go forward so that we can reach Committee as soon as possible.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 491 c195
- 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 11:01:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548456
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548456
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548456