UK Parliament / Open data

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]

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.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

504 c497-8 

Session

2009-10

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top