|
Mr. Hammond: I am sorry; I should have said that amendment No. 64 was intended to be a probing amendment to establish that nothing in the Bill implied immunity. The Under-Secretary has confirmed that.
I am not sure that I followed the Under-Secretary's argument. I specifically framed the amendments to allow that in a reactive, emergency situation, an authority would be able to operate outside as well as inside its boundaries, specifically to avoid the situation that he posited of a rescue in progress coming to a boundary and having to stop. That would, of course, be absurd.
The amendment deals with the wide-ranging power for an authority to take any action it considers appropriate extra-territorially. Two neighbouring
Column Number: 143
authorities may have very different views of their priorities. They may have different agendas and, in relation to discretionary activities, one may choose to focus on one thing, and the other on another. It does not seem reasonable that an authority should have the right to pursue its agenda, other than in a live incident situation, in the area of another authority under the clause.
There will be many other provisions of the Bill, including clause 12, under which it may be appropriate for an authority that specialises in providing a certain service to offer it in another area, either to the fire authority by way of assistance or discharging a function, or to members of the public under clause 12. It may be a service for which the authority wants to charge.
4.45 pm
Phil Hope: It was very clear.
Mr. Hammond: It may be very clear to the Under-Secretary because he has the benefit of not only the Bill, but the knowledge in his own mind, although I would not be so sure that he has the benefit of the knowledge in the Deputy Prime Minister's mind. We must consider the Bill independently of the personalities or intentions of the individual Ministers who address us and examine what could be done within the very wide scope of the clause.
We are debating a relatively narrow point—the pursuit of a discretionary area of activity by one authority in the area of another authority. If we want to defend the principle that the primary responsibility for discharge of functions in an area lies with that area's fire and rescue authority, the Bill is unsatisfactory. The Under-Secretary has not entirely convinced me. However, in the interests of making more progress on top of the good progress already made this afternoon, I do not intend to press the amendment. I will try more carefully to consider what the Minister has said and revert if it seems necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Other services
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
This is a simple amendment. The clause provides fire and rescue authorities with the power to provide the services of their employees and equipment for any purpose that they consider appropriate, inside or outside their area. It refers to commercial services that might be provided by the authority, such as pumping water, filling ponds and emptying swimming pools. It is useful to have those resources available for the benefit of the community, and we have no difficulty with the proposals because the services are being provided to individuals and the authority is acting no differently from any other service provider.
Column Number: 144
The amendment was tabled to emphasise that those services should never be provided at the expense of the core functions that are imposed on the fire authorities. We cannot have every appliance from the Wiltshire and Swindon fire authority pumping out the Greenwich swimming pool of the Minister of State when buildings all over Wiltshire are burning down.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary agrees with the sentiment of the amendment, and if he can assure us that the performance of the services under clause 12 must always be secondary to the statutory functions of the fire and rescue authority, it may not be necessary to pursue the amendment.
Phil Hope: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires. Amendment No. 65 would restrict the power under clause 12 for fire and rescue authorities to provide services extraneous to their core functions as set out in clauses 6 to 9, and it would mean that an authority could take on a service only as long as it did not adversely affect its core duties under those clauses. The amendment is unnecessary; it is implicit that an authority must make provision for the efficient discharge of its core duties as set out in those clauses, and it would be in possible breach of its legal obligation were it not to do so for whatever reason.
Fire and rescue authorities already undertake activities that are of benefit to the wider community; for example, as the hon. Gentleman described, using pumping equipment to help to drain a village or community pond, but not my right hon. Friend's non-existent swimming pool.
Mr. Raynsford: The Thames is my swimming pool.
Phil Hope: And it is now a much cleaner swimming pool in which one can bathe, thanks to our environmental improvement services.
As with other non-fire services, this type of community service is currently provided using discretionary powers under section 3(1)(e) of the 1947 Act. The clause provides the authorities with the power to use their equipment or personnel for any purposes that they believe appropriate and wherever they choose. That power complements other powers in clause 11 that provide the authorities with discretion to equip for and respond to events or situations where there is a risk to people or the environment.
I hope that, given that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his reassuring words. He has clarified the position and it is good to have that in the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Reinforcement schemes
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in
Column Number: 145
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 67, in
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Teignbridge, intentionally or otherwise, has caused me a momentary difficulty, and I look forward to coming back to the purpose of amendment No. 66 when we are finally fortunate enough to get to—
Mr. Raynsford: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. We may be approaching the 5 o'clock break for our proceedings, and I that believe the Opposition wish to make a little further progress. I seek your guidance as to whether it would be in order for us to go a little beyond 5 o'clock if necessary. I hope that it will not be, but I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee to understand that at this stage, and helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
The Chairman: It is for the Committee to determine that. We must wait till 5 o'clock.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Hara, and even more grateful to the Minister. Mutual reinforcement has taken place. We have shown that it can work very well.
The purpose of amendment No. 56 is specific. Subsection (3) is narrowly worded. It allows cost recovery, not for actions taken to operate the scheme, but only for
''expenses incurred in taking measures to secure the efficient operation of the scheme''—
a reinforcement scheme. That may seem a subtle distinction, but I take it to mean that there can be recovery of the expenses of setting up control and forward-planning arrangements, but not of the marginal costs of carrying out the reinforcement—going into another fire authority's territory.
Amendment No. 56 proposes that the authority providing the assistance can recover the costs incurred in providing that assistance. It could be full costs or marginal costs; I have an open mind on that. However, an issue here needs to be addressed. This is a probing amendment, because it is not clear what the provision means, but the amendment would allow the scheme to define—because there will be a reinforcement scheme—what costs arising from the operation of the scheme could be recovered.
Amendment No. 67 touches on something slightly different. It provides for the apportionment of liability arising from the operation of the scheme. That also seems to be an issue in what are, as the Minister of State said, increasingly litigious times. When a fire authority in pursuit of a reinforcement scheme moves into and operates in the area of another fire authority, is it operating as an agent of the host fire authority, and does the host fire authority retain liability for the actions of that authority, or is the liability somehow apportioned between the two authorities?
This is another probing amendment to give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to explain how the provision will work in practice. I know that reinforcement schemes have been around for a long
Column Number: 146
time and work very well in practice, but I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's clarification.
Phil Hope: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requires. Amendment No. 56 would specify that any expenses incurred in providing assistance under a reinforcement scheme could be apportioned between the participating authorities. Amendment No. 67 would then enable a reinforcement scheme to apportion between participating authorities the costs of any third-party liability arising from the operation of the scheme.
Let me be clear about this. Clause 13(3) enables authorities to apportion costs arising from the operation of a reinforcement scheme. That is the key question about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We do not believe that it is necessary to specify exactly which costs may be apportioned between authorities in this way. Listing specific items that are covered by the ability to apportion the costs of operating the scheme runs the risk of excluding anything that is not mentioned in the Bill.
| 
