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.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con73 (+2 tell) 6 (+2 tell)027.2%
Lab73 1028.7%
LDem6 0010.5%
PC2 0066.7%
SDLP1 0033.3%
Total:155 7026.5%

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

Peter BoneWellingboroughCon (front bench)tellno
Christopher ChopeChristchurchCon (front bench)no
James ClappisonHertsmereCon (front bench)no
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)no
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)no
Nigel MillsAmber ValleyCon (front bench)no
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)tellno
Jacob Rees-MoggNorth East SomersetCon (front bench)no
Paul FlynnNewport WestLabno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive