I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. What is the promoters' attitude to this, because they sent a letter telling us that they were prepared to accept amendment No. 5, but when it comes to it, they insist on voting it down? I was asking why they had now sent a letter saying that they did not want to oppose amendment No. 2. That seems odd. They have always claimed that this is an extremely important local Bill and that they wanted the powers provided in it. Having made a great deal of fuss about the clause that deals with processions, they seem to feel that the paragraph dealing with photographs is not all that important. If it is not, why did they take the trouble to put it in the Bill in the first place? Why did they insist on putting it through all its stages? Why is it still in the Bill?
Had I not tabled this amendment, the paragraph would have remained in the Bill. It seems odd and illogical for the promoters to feel that one clause is important and yet not seem to think that this paragraph is all that important. We should work out what it does. As I understand it, the promoters are saying that no individual may stand in the street and take photographs of passers-by and then attempt to sell photographs to them. I can remember going to seaside resorts on many occasions—