Fireworks Bill — Clause 10 — Training Courses — 13 Jun 2003 at 13:15
I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 6, line 10, leave out clause 10.
The amendment was inspired by the receipt late on Wednesday of the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill. The clause introduces a lot of regulation, requirements about training and so on. We probably know from our constituency postbags that some of these requirements impinge disproportionately on small businesses and shopkeepers-on the small business person, rather than the large multiple. If a butcher, for example, has to go on a training course, he has to find somebody else to run his shop. A little café in Highcliffe in my constituency recently obtained a licence to sell alcohol with meals, and the proprietor is required to go on a training course. He needs no training in something like that-he is a fit and proper person for the task. The requirement to go on a training course means that he will have to close his café or get someone in in his stead.
Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 78.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||3||9 (+2 tell)||0||8.6%|
|Lab||66 (+2 tell)||0||0||16.6%|
|Sir Sydney Chapman||Chipping Barnet||Con||no|
|Roger Gale||North Thanet||Con (front bench)||no|
|Patrick Cormack||South Staffordshire||Con (front bench)||no|