I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not for the first time, two hon. Members have reached different conclusions about what should be the right form of the legislation. However, clause 5 and the amendments tabled as a result of the deliberations in the Opposed Bill Committee show that the members of that Committee, and now the Bill's promoters, have tried to encapsulate in statute the case law that has arisen.
There is no evidence to suggest that case law requires a pedlar to move between each set of transactions a distance of 200 metres rather than 20 metres, which is the distance that I suggest in amendment 9. I strongly dissent from my hon. Friend's suggestion that that is a wrecking amendment. It is not. The amendment has been selected for debate, and it is based upon representations that I have received. I have modified them not only to make them more reasonable, but to bring them closer than might otherwise have been possible to the concerns expressed.
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 21 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c497-8 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:03:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_613621
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_613621
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_613621