Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Canterbury City Council Bill.


Canterbury City Council Bill

I am not seeking to rehearse the arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you bear with me, I shall come to the Unopposed Bill Committee's conclusion that the provisions were a matter of judgment. I was going to draw that to the attention of hon. Members. Paragraph 86 of the Committee transcript states that a different level of proportionality will apply in the two Bills before us today from that applying in the other two Bills considered in the same Committee. Concessions had been made in the latter two Bills to reduce the ambit of the restriction on pedlars operating in city centres. In summary, it would be fair to suggest that although the Committee was clear that the Reading and Leeds Bills were proportionate, it left open the question of whether, in the absence of such amendments, the two Bills before us today satisfied the third criterion of proportionality.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c910 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Direct selling Canterbury City Council Licensing Local government Nottingham Nottingham City Council Touting Street trading Canterbury
Legislation
Canterbury City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
Nottingham City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk