I thought that the matter was relevant to the amendment. I seek to persuade the House that we should remove the paragraph in subsection (2)(b):
photographs, or purports to photograph, any person by way of trade or business; or
On reflection, perhaps I should have tabled a consequential amendment to remove subsection (8)(c)
because that will have no standing if my amendment is accepted. No doubt the promoters would wish to table a third amendment to take out the clause.
I wish to deal with the principal question whether it is right to license photographers who wish to take pictures in the street and, if so, whether this is done in such a way as to catch in the net only those people who do it specifically on pleasurable occasions to try to make money out of individuals, or whether the clause is drawn in such a way that it includes those people who take occasional pictures and supply them for profit or gain to the manufacturers of picture postcards, people who display them in their shop windows for sale, put them in for competition or set out to make money in any other way.
Many semi-amateur photographers ply fairly regularly for trade. A good example that annoys the professional photographer is wedding photographs. Individuals who work at a job for most of the week turn up on a Saturday afternoon sometimes to take pictures that they display at a reception in the hope of getting orders. The clause must be examined closely, because it applies to certain areas only. If an individual were taking wedding photographs within the church or church grounds, I presume that the provision would not apply. However, if, as so often happens, the individual crosses the road to the recreation ground, or stays on the grass verge, which may well make a more attractive site with the church slightly more distant, he will be covered by the clause.
In moving the amendment, my aim was to have it established by the promoters whether the provision was necessary, and one assumes that, having pressed it through all its Committee stages, they feel it is necessary, notwithstanding the letter that has been circulated at this late stage to the House. If the promoters feel that it is necessary, I wish to know whether they are satisfied that, by definition, it covers only the first group of people I described, or whether it covers other groups of people whom I am sure most hon. Members would consider should not have to go through the procedure of submission for a licence.