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 absolutely agree with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Basically, I have a bit of a split personality on this issue because I am rather sympathetic to the case for reviving the Leeds City Council Bill on account of that council's compromising attitude; and I have a similar benevolence towards the Reading Borough Council Bill revival motion. I am much less enthusiastic, however, about the Nottingham City Council Bill, which has not yet received its Second Reading—notwithstanding the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, whose case, I suspect, falls between those two extremes.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 491 c197
- 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_548467
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548467
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548467