Proceeding contribution from Philip Davies (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 5 July 2010. It occurred during Legislative debate on Canterbury City Council Bill.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when considering whether the Bills should be revived, we should also take into account the fact that the report on street trading and pedlary that he mentioned was produced after the Bills were initially introduced? Would it not make sense for any legislation on this matter to take note of the report by Durham university, which these Bills do not, because they were introduced before its publication?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 513 c125
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Canterbury City Council Licensing EU law Leeds Local government Nottingham Nottingham City Council Reading (Berkshire) Regulation 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:27:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_651958
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_651958
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_651958