Canterbury City Council Bill — Close Debate on Requirement for Street Trading Enforcement Officers to be Trained — 31 Jan 2013 at 13:30
The majority of MPs voted to conclude their debate on if officers enforcing street trading laws covering offering services should be required be trained and move to a vote on the question.
MPs were considering the Canterbury City Council Bill[1]. The motion which was put as a result of this vote to conclude the debate was:
- That this House agrees with Lords amendment C3
Lords amendment C3[2] (also known as Lords amendment C; the C refers to Canterbury[3]) stated:
- Page 2, line 9, after “writing” insert “in compliance with section (Training)(1)
This amendment sought to alter clause 2[4] of the Bill, and in particular the definition which stated:
- ""authorised officer" means an officer of the council authorised by the council in writing to act for the purposes of this Act;
The section on training which was to be added to the Bill later (making amendment C3 a so called "paving amendment") provided that the Council will not authorise an officer to act for the purposes of the Bill unless satisfied that the officer has received adequate training in acting for those purposes. The provision in the training clause also stated the Council is required to make training available to constables and community support officers empowered by Clause 5 to give a fixed penalty notice.
The purposes in question were the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices (fines) for in relation to the street trading provisions of Paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
The Canterbury City Council Bill contained provisions to extend the definition of street trading used to include the supplying of or offering to supply any service in a street for gain or reward.
Party Summary
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 (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 73 (+2 tell) | 6 (+2 tell) | 0 | 27.2% |
| Lab | 73 | 1 | 0 | 28.7% |
| LDem | 6 | 0 | 0 | 10.5% |
| PC | 2 | 0 | 0 | 66.7% |
| SDLP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 33.3% |
| Total: | 155 | 7 | 0 | 26.5% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Peter Bone | Wellingborough | Con (front bench) | tellno |
| Christopher Chope | Christchurch | Con (front bench) | no |
| James Clappison | Hertsmere | Con (front bench) | no |
| Philip Davies | Shipley | Con (front bench) | no |
| Philip Hollobone | Kettering | Con (front bench) | no |
| Nigel Mills | Amber Valley | Con (front bench) | no |
| David Nuttall | Bury North | Con (front bench) | tellno |
| Jacob Rees-Mogg | North East Somerset | Con (front bench) | no |
| Paul Flynn | Newport West | Lab (minister) | no |