Canterbury City Council Bill

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is quite correct. There would be a legitimate case for delaying this a little longer—until February—so that we can see where we are as regards the Government report. My issue is with the specific Bills and the procedure that has been used to bring them to Third Reading. This is the first time that I have spoken in a Third Reading debate on private business, and I have been doing some research. This information has been provided by the House of Commons and, in particular, the House of Commons Information Office's document on private Bills. I also looked at column 989 of the Official Report on 29 October 2008, which was the Second Reading of the Canterbury City Council Bill. I spoke in that debate. Given that we are talking about this group of Bills, I also looked at the Second Reading debate for the other councils involved, which can be found in the Official Report for 3 June 2009, from column 329. I also referred to the transcript of the Unopposed Bill Committee that took place on 8 July 2009. Rather bizarrely, the Committee is said to have been chaired by Sir Michael Lord, with Mr. Adrian Bailey, Gordon Banks, Peter Bottomley and Sir Robert Smith. That is how the transcript has been produced, I assume by Hansard. I have concerns about how this Third Reading has been presented and dealt with. What should happen with a private Bill is that the initial, formal First Reading stage is the same as with—