Clause 79 - powers of entry: supplementary
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill
2:35 pm
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley, Conservative)
I sought guidance and wondered whether Hansard was readily available so that I could seamlessly carry on, but I am told that we may have to wait a day or two. I am not going to ask you, Mr. Forth, to suspend this sitting while we wait, so I shall press on with what I think I was last up to, which is to ask the Minister why,
''so far as is reasonably practicable'',
is mentioned in the Bill at clause 79(5)(b). I agree with clause 79(6), which states that
''the officer is not required by virtue of subsection (5)(b) to re-set the alarm'',
because alarms are different. It is reasonable not to expect officers to be able to do that.
Subsection (7) states:
''Any expenses reasonably incurred by the local authority in connection with entering the premises, silencing the alarm and complying with subsection (5) may be recovered by the authority from the responsible person''.
In certain circumstances, the authorities will be protected if they enter the premises and cannot reasonably turn off the alarm. They might not have the key or the code that is needed to turn it off, so they might cut the electricity to the alarm or, indeed, smash the alarm off the wall. If they were to do that, I assume that they would be protected in that the owner of the alarm would not then be able to come back and say, ''Hold on, you've caused damage to my alarm: it cost £500 to replace and I want that money from you''. I assume that clause 79(7) is designed to give them protection.
If the authorities have abused their power in either entering or not properly securing the premises, which they are duty bound to do under subsection (5)(b), I assume that the owner would be able to go to court if he was unhappy that the authorities had not complied with the provisions in the Bill.