I referred to the Bills' promoters, but obviously my hon. Friend promotes the Bill about Canterbury—a city council—which is the subject of the second debate tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker has already made it clear that he does not believe that it is appropriate to go into the merits of the Bills. However, to give my hon. Friend a summary response, I commend the Durham university report to him. I do not know whether he has read it, but it is available on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website. I am delighted that my diligent hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has not only read and digested it, but has a copy of it in the Chamber. If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) reads it in full, he will realise that there is a clear answer to the problem that he has raised, and that the findings are not in accord with the prejudices that he brings to the debate, doubtless based on his experiences in Canterbury. However, in the light of the objective report, I do not believe that those experiences warrant the proposed legislation.
Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 April 2009.
It occurred during Legislative debate on Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
491 c175-6 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:00:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548384
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548384
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548384