---

Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)

I appreciate the points made by the hon. Gentleman, who is, again, a powerful advocate for his town. We may disagree on the extent of the problem. I still have a concern that this is a solution looking for a problem; I am not sure that there is a massive problem. In the spirit of co-operation, I shall certainly praise the approach that Reading has taken in finding a sensible compromise that not only suits its needs, but protects the legitimate rights of pedlars. Therefore, I see no reason why the Bills relating to Leeds and Reading should not be readily agreed. The case is slightly different as regards Nottingham. My understanding—the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) may well be able to help here—is that Nottingham has not been quite as keen as Leeds or Reading to co-operate and recognise some of the legitimate concerns raised, particularly those discussed in previous debates by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I hope that before we finally consider whether to divide on the Bills, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East might offer some reassurance that Nottingham will go down a similar line to Leeds and Reading and will look to incorporate some of the compromises that those cities have adopted. It is important to consider, albeit briefly, some new points that have emerged from the report published by the university of Durham, which was not available to the House when we previously debated these matters. As the House will know, in paragraph 4 of a statement made by the promoters of the Bills they state:""The arguments in favour of the Bills have been rehearsed at length in the debates on the Manchester, Bournemouth and Canterbury Bills, and they apply equally to Leeds, Nottingham and Reading."" In paragraph 5, they go on to quote the report from Durham university:""Local authorities hoping to adopt legislation—whether a Private Act or the adoption of powers granted under the current Private Members Bill, if it becomes law—should provide a strong case to justify their adoption."" The promoters use that statement to argue against any further delay or debate about these matters, but the Durham university report, published since those Second Reading debates, makes it clear—in paragraph 212, page 70, if anybody has a copy of the report—that there should be a heavy burden of proof attached to those seeking private legislation""to establish genuine evidence of a local problem insurmountable through the use of existing powers."" My contention is that no such case has been made for any of these cities, as far as I am aware.