Skip to main content

1-20 of 115 results for subject:Nottingham

Subject X
Seized articles

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Seized articles (115)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Type
Local acts
Date
28 February 2013
Reference
2013 c. III

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C3.

Member
Stuart Andrew (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1088
House
House of Commons

May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)? He has spent considerable time on the Bill and I thank him. His duties on the Select Committee on Justice will prevent him from being in the Chamber for the duration of the debate. My...

Member
Stuart Andrew (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 cc1088-9
House
House of Commons

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for taking this on. I will not be able to be in the Chamber for most of the debate because of the duties he mentioned. The matter has been running for some years and has cost Canterbury city council...

Member
Julian Brazier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1089
House
House of Commons

Given the first two speeches, it might be advantageous for the House if I set out the Government’s position. We do not normally seek to intervene on private business, but we have in this case—not on the substance, but to ensure that it is consistent with the EU services directive....

Member
Matt Hancock (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1089
House
House of Commons

I have listened with interest to the three contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), with typical understatement, said that their lordships had some concerns about the Bill—the disproportionate powers, the power of seizure and so on. We will discuss the pedlars aspect of...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 cc1090-1
House
House of Commons

Before my hon. Friend moves on, given that a number of the amendments relate to the amount of training that would need to be given to people by local authorities, would it not be a spectacular waste of money for local authorities to spend an awful lot of money on...

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1091
House
House of Commons

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend on that point. He refers to the money that has been wasted. Councils and council tax payers will need to ask questions about how they got themselves into this mess. They have each probably spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 cc1091-2
House
House of Commons

Given the extent to which the Lords amendments fillet the Bill, as my hon. Friend described, where do they leave its substance? He will recall that when we were debating these matters in the previous Parliament, we were told that all the clauses relating to seizure were essential for local...

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1092
House
House of Commons

It would leave the Bill exactly as it is now, but with those aspects removed. The point needs to be made—my hon. Friend is probably making it—that there are going to be a lot of words to be eaten as a result of this. Some of my hon. Friends and...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 cc1092-3
House
House of Commons

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, but were we to remove “on its internet website”, how does he imagine that the information either would or should be published ?

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1093
House
House of Commons

I imagine it would be published in a form that people could read, without having to access the internet—in other words, in a document or notice that could be obtained from local council offices or sent in advance.

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1093
House
House of Commons

I am presuming that, in essence, my hon. Friend’s amendment would actually help local authorities. Under their lordships’ amendment, the information would have to be published on the council’s internet website, whereas if his amendment was accepted, presumably the council could publish it in any form it liked. It could...

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1093
House
House of Commons

I accept that. If my hon. Friend is saying that my amendment is ill-conceived because it would not achieve the objective of enabling pedlars in a city such as Canterbury to find out what was happening, I am beginning to understand his point. That, however, is why I tabled amendment...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1093
House
House of Commons

I certainly agree with that, but I was merely making the point that my hon. Friend’s initial amendment seemed to help the local authority by being less prescriptive and bureaucratic, and that perhaps it was an indication that he was going soft in his old age.

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1093
House
House of Commons

I take those sorts of allegations very seriously, particularly if one is talking about going soft in the head. I think my hon. Friend was referring to the Local Government Association. It is worth pointing out, therefore, the disparaging remarks made in the other place about how the LGA responded...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1094
House
House of Commons

I totally support my hon. Friend on these amendments. Does he agree that it is in the local authority’s interest to make this information clear, because if it wants to deal with an issue in a particular part of its city or district, it would be helpful for that information...

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1094
House
House of Commons

It is a significant danger, and that is the problem. Whenever anyone suggests we should deal with something on the nod, it means that the full implications of the proposal are not examined, but that is the whole purpose of scrutiny in this place. That is why I hope that...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1094
House
House of Commons

Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the local authorities concerned to understand better why they seem to object to his sensible amendments?

1 pm

Member
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 cc1094-5
House
House of Commons

In all honesty, I had not expected that there would be objections, save perhaps on the basis of the “not invented here” formula, because people are not always generous in accepting other people’s ideas and suggestions.

However, I would like to put on record the fact that in considering these four...

Member
Christopher Chope (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 January 2013
Reference
557 c1095
House
House of Commons