Clause 27 (Hansard, 3 February 1982)

§ Mr. Macfarlane
I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 33, line 22 leave out 'Any' and insert 'Subject to subsection 2(A) below, any'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 63 and 66.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
The amendments are minor consequential drafting amendments. Amendment No. 61 paves the way for the exclusion currently provided for by subsection (5)(c) to be provided for instead by the new subsection (2A). Amendment No. 66 deletes the present provisions of subsection 5(c) following their transfer to new subsection (2A).

§ Dr. David Clark
I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 33, line 30 at end insert The council of the district shall notify the parish or community council within whose area the proposed market is situated". We are trying to improve communications and iron out difficulties before they occur. All that we are asking is that when a person notifies a district council of an intention to hold a temporary market, if that market falls within the area of a local community or parish council the district council shall as a matter of form notify the notice of intention to the parish council.
I can envisage a town council area where a temporary market is held occasionally. Adjacent to the site of the temporary market is a local swimming pool and sports arena run by the parish or town council. If the town or parish council is aware that a temporary market is to take place, it may offer to make facilities such as toilets available to the users of the market. There would be benefits, I submit, if the parish councils and community councils were kept informed of all developments. It has been argued by the Minister that an undue burden would be placed on district councils. I have seen the letter that he wrote to the National Association of Local Councils. I should have thought that in these days of modern photocopying the proposal contained in the amendment is an easy exercise.
It is, I believe, a requirement of planning law that all plans relating to a parish council go first to the district council and are then sent to the parish council for comment. I am not even asking for comment. I ask only that a copy of the original notice should be sent to the parish council, the town council or the community council for ease of communication and better facilitation of the temporary market. I hope that the Minister will view the matter in the same light.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I have discussed this matter previously. I am aware of his concern and probably that of hon. 479 Members on both sides of the House. I am also aware of the interest of parish and community councils. I am not, however, entirely convinced that there is a sufficient case for these councils needing to know about proposed temporary markets to justify a further imposition on district councils. That further imposition could mean a requirement that copies of notifications should be passedon.
Clause 27 amounts simply to a notification procedure. It is not a procedure where the operator states his case and not a procedure where the objectors have opportunities to make their views known. Such rights will arise if a council decides, for example, to take enforcement action under the planning Acts. When these notifications are made, the district and the borough councils will need to take action quickly if they consider it warranted. In some cases, they may want to make contingency arrangements for traffic, parking and such matters. In others, they may want to consider using their powers to prevent the market being held.
I would certainly expect district councils to know very well when a market is undesirable and if necessary to consult the parish or community council concerned—or, if the district thought it an appropriate course, there is nothing to stop it making arrangements for informing the parish and community councils of these notifications. That is totally different from making this a requirement of the legislation.
I am mindful of the constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman has brought to bear on this matter. I know of his anxiety. I believe that the points are acknowledged. I hope that he will see fit to withdraw the amendment, although I cannot give any assurance that we shall table an amendment in another place.

§ Dr. Clark
I envisage a situation in which no difficulty will arise. It seems wrong that a temporary market can descend upon a local town or parish council area without prior notification. I accept the assurances given by the Minister. I hope that he will consider proposing an amendment in another place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I beg to move amendment No. 64 in page 33, line 44, leave out £500' and insert £1,000'.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
I cannot fully accept the hon. Gentleman's request. First, I should say something about the basis upon which maximum fines for summary offences are fixed in legislation. First, there is the benchmark of £1,000 which is generally the maximum fine available to magistrates courts for any one offence. It must therefore be reserved for the most serious offences with which magistrates deal. Below £1,000, there are four maxima in common modern usage—£500, £200, £50 and £25. Each step is designed to enable Parliament to Signify a real difference in the comparable gravity of the offence to which it is allotted.
The criteria employed to distinguish between one type of offence and another where it is at issue whether a maximum of £500 or £1,000 is provided are as follows. Offences at the £500 level are generally those arising from conduct which is liable to cause some significant damage directly or indirectly to the property or interests of others or of the community at large, conduct motivated by substantial financial reward or other unentitled benefit. Some serious regulatory offences also attract this maximum.
Those at the £1,000 level are offences which are liable to cause substantial and direct damage to the property or interests of others or of the general community. Personal injury other than the most minor also carries this maximum, together with serious threats to public health, safety and institutions, serious environmental damage and a high level of illicit financial gain.
Against the background of those criteria, the offence of failing to give notice in connection with the holding of a temporary market, which is not in itself an illicit activity, clearly falls within the range of offences subject to the maximum of £500. To provide the maximum financial penalty generally available to the magistrates courts would take the offence out of the perspective within which the summary offences should be considered.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is a reasonable assessment of the current position and that in the light of that explanation he will feel able to seek to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.