Canterbury City Council Bill

It is because they have an amazing and accurate strength of belief in my capacity to advocate their case. That is what the answer amounts to. My powers of rhetoric are clearly well received by my Nottingham colleagues. As a former student at the university of Nottingham, perhaps I have some interest in that city. I wish to put a couple of brief points to the House. First, I want to deal with the Government's consultation. Like other supporters of these Bills, I strongly support the Government's steps in the direction of achieving a national structure. Indeed, I think that the position of those on all three Front Benches is that it would be better to have national legislation, but that does not yet exist, and it is likely to be some time away. That eventuality should not prevent the citizens of Canterbury, Nottingham and, indeed, other cities, from thinking that legitimate procedures still exist in this House to protect their interests. The consultation is very unlikely to produce legislation, certainly this side of a general election. Even if we look beyond that election and envisage a Labour Government returned to power with a strong majority, and even if my hon. Friend the Minister is still in the same ministerial role, although I think he is probably destined for much greater things, it is unlikely to be a priority in the early moments of the post-election period. That is why it is important for Canterbury and for Nottingham that this legislation moves forward in the House under procedures that are open and legitimate. My second point relates to the interesting comments by the hon. Member for Wellingborough about increases in unemployment. Of course, unemployment has gone up, including in cities such as my own. However, I assure him that the employment-destroying capacity of the bogus trader is a reality. That applies to legitimate businesses in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East and the hon. Member for Canterbury. That point must be taken on board as part of the equation. I have never said, nor would I ever say, that every pedlar is a rogue; that is simply not the case. Neither would I want to say that every pedlar is, in some sense, of marginal economic or social value. The right to peddle is not put at risk in the six Bills, of which these two are the most restrictive, nor by the other Bills that will, I hope, come before the House on another occasion. The right of people to operate under a pedlar's licence will remain intact. However, the legislation places legitimate restrictions on pedlars who use, and on occasion abuse, their position to the detriment of the ordinary passing traffic in our cities. That is inimical to legitimate businesses that face unfair competition of a kind that we should not allow in situations where there is a local interest, even if it has not yet been translated into a national issue. I think that that is the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East would want to have put forward in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I want to put that case strongly on behalf of Members from across the House and many different parts of the country. I associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East with the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury, which I strongly endorse. This is not a party political debate; in fact, the different political parties have, overwhelmingly, a common view. On that basis, I hope that we can proceed with the Third Reading of these Bills.