| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister explain why the phrase, ''any expenses incurred in operating the scheme'', is not better wording than that in the Bill? I know that it would remove some words, and I realise that that probably goes against the grain of some people in the drafting department, but that would seem to me to avoid any risk of confusion as to what it covers. Phil Hope: Clause 3 refers to ''participating in the scheme'' and
I think that the words ''efficient operation'' and ''participating in the scheme'' in the clause, plus the words that I have spoken this afternoon, must give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires. On amendment No. 67, the law already provides for the rare situation when a fire and rescue authority is sued and another authority or third party contributed to the loss caused. Under those circumstances, it is likely that any other fire and rescue authority involved would be included in the action. In any event, an authority that is sued would be entitled to recover a proportion of any damages awarded from any third party that shares responsibility. That is covered by general legal principles. Mr. Hammond: I understand that, but that is not quite the point I am asking. I am asking whether, when an appliance from one authority moves into the area of another, as they do routinely for reinforcement at an incident or to stand by when appliances are moved out to an incident, they are legally acting as agents of the host fire authority, or acting in their own capacity extra-territorially. We are envisaging other situations in the Bill; for example, under clause 9(2) the Secretary of State may direct require a function to be discharged extra-territorially. We are envisaging a fire authority acting on its own account and discharging functions that have been given to it externally. This seems to be different because in a reinforcement scheme the second Column Number: 147 authority is acting as the agent of the first. That is what I was hoping the Under-Secretary could confirm.Phil Hope: The authority and the fire engine operating in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman would be acting in their own capacity. The well-established legal principles that operate in such circumstances would then apply if someone was sued and damages had to be claimed from others. We are replicating in the Bill the provisions in the 1947 Act, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has worked well until now. The amendments are unnecessary, and I ask him not to press them.
5 pmMr. Hammond: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I certainly had no intention of pressing the amendments once I had received clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Hammond: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Teignbridge decided not to move amendment No. 74 because I had something rather nice to say about it. It rather neatly encapsulates the Liberal Democrat approach to a number of matters, but I have no doubt that it would now be out of order to address it. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman did not move it. Column Number: 148 I want to address a concern that we have about clause 13 that would have been addressed by amendment No. 66. Subsection (1) states:
That is an obligation—a prescription. The ''other'' fire and rescue authorities are undefined, unspecified. Unless a fire and rescue authority had entered into a reinforcement scheme with every other fire and rescue authority, which would not be necessary or practical, it would be difficult to know whether it had discharged the absolute obligation placed on it by subsection (1). The suggestion that we sought to make with amendment No. 66 was that there should be a definition of the authorities with which an authority is obliged to enter into reinforcement schemes. Looking at it with a layman's eye, it seems to me that geographical contiguity would be the most appropriate criterion. Beyond that, there ought to be an ability—a permissive power—to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities, where appropriate. At the moment, we are placing an obligation on an authority to enter into a reinforcement scheme with bodies unspecified. That does not seem terribly satisfactory or tidy, and I was hoping that the provision could be tidied up by defining the bodies in question. Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.] Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 24 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 12 February 2004 | |
