---

Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill

The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily adversarial, because I think that we are both on the same side, although that may be a surprise to him. However, if he says that Reading borough council's attitude is unrelated to the report produced by Durham university, all I can say is that that is certainly not the case for Leeds city council. I have with me an e-mail from Leeds city council sent on 6 March that says:""I refer to our meeting in January—regarding the street trading legislation proposed by Leeds City Council—when we agreed to consider the possibility of amending Clause 5 of the proposed legislation."" This is the relevant bit:""The report produced by Durham University has since been published and we have considered our proposed amendment in the light of that report."" Leeds city council therefore links its amendment to the findings of that report. When I met a representative from Leeds city council and a representative from Reading borough council earlier today, I certainly gained the impression that both councils were motivated to support an amendment because of the contents of the Durham report and not just because of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has articulated.