---

Canterbury City Council Bill

The hon. Gentleman does not make that point for the first time; it has also been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. He said that this was what the councils had decided, so that should be the law. We are talking about the difference between being able to make byelaws and changing the impact of national freedoms. At the moment, under national legislation, pedlars have the freedom to operate under the auspices of a pedlar's certificate. If we intend to limit or remove that freedom, this House and the other place should quite rightly and properly consider the rationale for doing so. Indeed, as I said earlier, it is incumbent on us, and a requirement under the European convention on human rights, to examine whether the proposals are proportionate. It is no good just saying, "This appeals to Nottingham, therefore it shall be." I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has had the chance to read the proceedings of the Unopposed Bill Committee, but, if so, he may agree with my assessment that the argument of the promoters' agents reached its weakest point when they tried to justify the different approach taken in relation to Nottingham and Canterbury compared with the provisions relating to Leeds and Reading. The argument from Nottingham, which the hon. Gentleman has summed up, was basically, "We're in Nottingham; we think this is best for us; so be it." However, the people from Leeds and Reading accepted the argument about proportionality, and they did not want to prevent lawful pedlars who trade goods on their person from continuing to operate in their town centres.