Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I wish to make a small point. Subsection (4) mentions:

''The officer and any person who enters the premises''.

Only an authorised officer should enter the premises. Is the clause suggesting that someone is accompanying the authorised officer? That seems to completely contradict clause 78.

In full, the subsection says: 

''The officer and any person who enters the premises with him by virtue of subsection (3) must not cause more damage to or disturbance at the premises than is necessary for the purpose of silencing the alarm.''

It adds:

''Any expenses reasonably incurred by the local authority . . . may be recovered by the authority from the responsible person.''

Will the Minister explain what happens if even minimal damage has been done to the property? Who is responsible for making good that damage? Who will pay the cost of restoring the property to the state it was in before the damage was caused by forced entry?

I want to make a similar point about clause 79(5)(b). Will the Minister say why he feels it necessary to have brackets around

''(so far as is reasonably practicable)''?

The subsection says that the officer must leave the premises

''as effectively secured against entry as he found them.''

I assume that the officer entering the premises to silence the alarm is not going to cause more damage than they reasonably need to. On the point about securing the premises on leaving them, the point of having an alarm is that people want to protect their premises. The last thing that they would want is to find out that when the alarm—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.