I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, to put it bluntly, some people are persuaded to part with £5 when they are drunk. On certain occasions, they might not want the photographs, but on other occasions they have been taken for a ride by the photographer.
That is one side of the argument, and it is a legitimate argument, why the promoters want to issue a licence in certain cases with the name and the address of the individual carrying out the trade so that someone who feels that they have been diddled in this way can make representations based on trading standards, or something else, and get redress. If there were evidence of such malpractices in Nottingham, that would be a legitimate reason for including the clause in the Bill.
However, we must look at the drafting of the clause. It does not refer only to people touting for trade in the way that I have described. I should like to hear from the promoters or from hon. Members who have had the chance to study the Bill more closely than I have what will happen if someone wishes to take photographs to produce calendars or picture postcards of Nottingham.
Subsection (8) includes an exemption for
the taking of a photograph for the purpose of making it available for publication in a newspaper or periodical if the photographer is employed as such by or on behalf of the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical or carries on a business which consists in, or includes, selling or supplying photographs for such publication".
A person taking photographs for a daily newspaper or the local paper in Nottingham will not have to bother about registration, but a person taking photographs for a publication other than a newspaper or periodical will have to get permission. However, there are many amateur photographers who do not normally take pictures to sell either to the subject of the photograph or to newspapers, but who, if they take photographs of an accident, a fire or a demonstration, may attempt to sell them to the papers. Would such a photographer need a licence?