Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (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 am grateful to you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What it means—this will disappoint the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter)—is that were there to be a Division in respect of the group, hon. Members who were against the revival of one or more of the Bills would be obliged to vote against the revival motion, notwithstanding the fact that they might have sympathy with the approach adopted by the imaginative councils of Reading and Leeds.
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_548459
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548459
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548459