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
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that I am obliged to point out the complete nonsense of his seeking to impugn the motives of Reading borough council? The council's willingness to be flexible is not based on 90 or 19 pages of the Durham university report, but on a problem on the streets of Reading, which is that of pedlars fraudulently acting as stallholders. Does he agree that it is not for Reading borough council to ascribe motives to Nottingham, Canterbury, Leeds or any other authority, but to argue its case, and that the issues are not related?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 491 c195-6
- 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 11:01:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548460
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548460
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548460