I am not seeking to rehearse the arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you bear with me, I shall come to the Unopposed Bill Committee's conclusion that the provisions were a matter of judgment. I was going to draw that to the attention of hon. Members. Paragraph 86 of the Committee transcript states that a different level of proportionality will apply in the two Bills before us today from that applying in the other two Bills considered in the same Committee. Concessions had been made in the latter two Bills to reduce the ambit of the restriction on pedlars operating in city centres. In summary, it would be fair to suggest that although the Committee was clear that the Reading and Leeds Bills were proportionate, it left open the question of whether, in the absence of such amendments, the two Bills before us today satisfied the third criterion of proportionality.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Canterbury City Council Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c910 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:04:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609381
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609381
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609381