Order. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) anticipates what I am about to say. Canterbury has already been raised; Reading has now been raised; but the motion concerns Manchester and Bournemouth. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will not think that I am trying to encourage the hon. Gentleman to go down the wrong route. I am sure that he knows not to do so.
While I am on my feet, let me say this. I think that it is a question of balance. It is quite difficult to maintain an equitable distinction between the content, or the merits, of the Bills and reasons why a revival motion should or should not be accepted. The fact of the report to which the hon. Member for Christchurch has referred is an argument in question. To give too much detail about that report would, I think, tilt the balance unfairly.
Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Speaker
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 c178-9 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:01:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548402
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548402
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548402