Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Before this legislation, I had never come across or heard the word ““misinstalled””—it is a curious turn of phrase—but clearly if an alarm is misinstalled the idea of it being maintained at relatively regular intervals is of course the responsibility of the business holder in that company. That has to be undertaken. That is why this is a reasonable amendment. The only question I have on that concerns the evidential burden. If the business owners had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the alarm system was properly maintained, would any action be taken against the company which had failed to do so or would it be a matter for the business? There is a slight legal quagmire here, and although I am in no haste to make extra work for lawyers, I broadly support the amendment. It is entirely reasonable.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c1026-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Compulsory purchase Councillors Conduct Council tax Fees and charges Land Greater London EU law Fines Infrastructure Increases Fire and rescue services Local government Motor vehicles Litter Planning Business rates Referendums Parish and town councils Local plans Mayoral development corporations Standards Sustainable development Social rented housing Tenants Rescue services Homes and Communities Agency Infrastructure Planning Commission Tenant Services Authority Petitions
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk