The point about fees and costs cuts both ways, because if we allow the Bills to proceed, the promoters would no doubt argue that the Standing Orders state:""The bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last session or the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages, and no new fees shall be charged to those stages.""
So the promoters could argue that they are trying to be cost-effective in not leaving the matter in abeyance by waiting to hear what the Government say and starting again at a later stage.
Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Greg Knight
(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 c182 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:01:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548421
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548421
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548421