I beg to move amendment No. 62, in

clause 11, page 6, line 38, at end insert

'by acquisition or by agreement with third parties who own or control such equipment'.

The amendment should not detain us, but there are some specific issues to clarify. It deals with the wide discretion that is given to local authorities in choosing to prepare to respond to other eventualities. We seek to clarify the provision that gives authorities the power

''to secure the provision of equipment.''

The Minister referred to the clause this morning, and I interpreted the reference to the authority's power to secure any equipment in pursuing

''any action it considers appropriate . . . in response to an event or situation''

or

''for the purpose of enabling action to be taken in response to such an event or situation''

to mean that the authority could buy and maintain specialist equipment and perhaps enter into arrangements with third parties with access to heavy-lifting equipment or high-volume pumping equipment. All of that is perfectly sensible. The amendment is intended to address the issue for the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers like to say—indeed, the Minister shamefully allowed that phrase to appear in the Fire Services Act 2003, although it does not usually creep into legislation.

I want to be clear that subsection (3) does not imply a power to requisition property. The amendment would require the fire and rescue authority to acquire property or secure it by agreement with a third party. It would not have the power to requisition it. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I will happily withdraw the amendment once the Under-Secretary stands up and says, ''Yes, that is the case''.

The Minister of State complicated the issue this morning when he suggested that the power to secure

the provision of equipment was not to be interpreted in the way that I understood it, but was actually a power that would allow fire authorities to fix smoke alarms to people's ceilings. I suppose that that is securing equipment, after a fashion, but it certainly is not pursuant to the obligations in subsection (1), which is clearly pursuant to an obligation in clause 6.

I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary confirmed that there is no power of compulsion in clause 11(3) and clarified how it allows equipment acquisition for the purposes specified—for example, the acquisition of inshore rescue craft, if that is appropriate—and at the same time the provision of smoke detectors.

The amendment gives us an opportunity to clarify a point that came up earlier. I shall deal with that first. I planned to do that under amendments Nos. 63 and 64, but I shall make it clear now how the clause can be used to purchase smoke alarms.

Clause 11 is part of the answer, but I am advised that the power in clause 5

''to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions''

would, given the duty in clause 6(1), include the power to purchase and provide equipment such as smoke alarms.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, but the problem is that clause 5 applies only to combined fire authorities and not clause 1 fire authorities. Clause 5 specifically refers to an authority

''constituted by a scheme under section 2 or a scheme to which section 4 applies''.

So what do the county brigades do?

As I said, clause 11 is only part of the answer. Parts of the Bill allow fire and rescue authorities of all kinds to purchase and distribute smoke alarms if they so wish. I was trying to explain why clause 11 is relevant, but other clauses are also relevant. Fire and rescue authorities can be confident in doing what they have done previously—they will be empowered to do so in future as well.

Amendment No. 62 would specify how fire and rescue authorities could secure equipment in order to discharge their powers under clause 11. It would limit the authorities to securing provision by acquisition or agreement with third parties who own or control such equipment. It covers particular ways of securing equipment.

Clause 11 gives clear statutory authority to fire and rescue authorities to equip themselves for and respond to incidents that pose a risk to life and to the environment. The fire and rescue service welcomes such clarity. Adding what appears to be an avoidance of doubt measure in amendment No. 62 would, frankly, do the reverse: it would create uncertainty about the powers of the fire and rescue authority to secure provision under other parts of the Bill: for example, clauses 7 and 8.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause is not a power to requisition. In fact, I am unaware of any

circumstance where there is doubt about the ability of a fire and rescue authority to secure equipment if it has a statutory function to discharge. I hope that with that reassurance he will agree that there is no need for the amendment.

I am still a little unclear about where county brigades find the power to distribute smoke alarms, but no doubt the Under-Secretary can let me know about that in due course. I am sure that he will find it in the Bill somewhere but, given that we have all looked for it, it is not immediately obvious where it is.

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's assurance that there is no requisitioning power in the clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in

clause 11, page 6, line 39, after '(1)', insert '(a)'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 64, in

clause 11, page 6, line 40, at end add—

'(5) The power conferred by subsection (1)(b) may be exercised outside as well as within the authority's area in respect of events or situations relating to functions conferred on the authority by the Secretary of State under section 9 with a requirement that such functions be discharged outside the authority's area.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to grant immunity from criminal or civil action in respect of actions taken by an authority under subsection (1).'.

Amendment No. 63 would limit the power that may be conferred by the Secretary of State in clause 11(4) to those circumstances described in subsection (1)(a). In other words, it would limit the ability to respond to an event outside the authority's own area to hot action—action in response to an event or situation specified in subsection (2).

Amendment No. 64 would to insert two new subsections in clause 11. The first of those has been numbered (5) and would limit that power to those functions that have been conferred on the authority under clause 9 and in respect of which the Secretary of State has conferred on the authority an obligation to operate outside its area. The significance of that is that, without such a provision, subsection (1), which allows a fire and rescue authority to take any action that it considers appropriate

''for the purpose of enabling action to be taken in response to . . . an event or situation''

described in subsection (2), together with the extra-territoriality provisions of subsection (4), raise the bizarre spectre of one fire authority being able to establish facilities in the area of another. That would be not just to discharge a function for which the Secretary of State has given them responsibility in that area under clause 9, but to discharge a function that they have chosen to take on under the discretionary powers of clause 11.

The wide-ranging power, linked with the ability to operate outside the area, creates that odd situation. Limiting the exercise of that power in non-hot pursuit

situations, in forward-looking planning and enabling situations, to the areas of function that the Secretary of State has conferred under clause 9(2) limits that satisfactorily. I hope that I have explained that in a way that the Under-Secretary understands and that he will be able to respond to the concern that I have outlined.

I will do my best. If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's amendments correctly, amendment No. 63 would ensure that the powers under clause 11(1)(a) remain the same, but it would remove the subsection (1)(b) powers. Amendment No. 64 would restrict the powers under subsection (1)(b) to events and situations relating to clause 9 functions. It would also add that anything done under clause 11 be open to civil or criminal actions.

Before I go on, I will clarify the point about smoke alarms. I said that clause 5 gives the power to existing combined fire authorities. Other fire and rescue authorities already have the powers under section 1(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1972. I should have said that before and I hope that we have finally put that to rest.

As I said when discussing amendment No. 62, the purpose of clause 11 is to provide fire and rescue authorities with the power to equip and to respond to situations where they believe that there is a risk to life and the environment. In making those decisions, a fire and rescue authority will take account of local risks and priorities as identified in its integrated risk management plan. Subsection (1)(a) gives fire and rescue authorities the power to respond in those circumstances. Subsection (1)(b) provides the fire and rescue authority with the power to take action to enable that response, in other words to plan and equip.

Amendment No. 64 would restrict the ability of a fire and rescue authority to equip itself under clause 11(1)(b) to emergencies defined in clause 9. Therefore, an authority would not be in a position to equip itself to deal with events and situations that its local risk assessment had identified were not covered by its core functions. A fire and rescue authority may wish to use its power under clause 11(1)(b) to buy, for example, special animal rescue equipment, as Kent has done, to rescue trapped farm animals. Under amendment No. 64, they would not be able to buy such equipment, except under subsection (1)(a), once such an event had taken place, and then only in order to respond to that specific emergency.

An order under clause 9 can already require a fire and rescue authority to make provision in order to carry out functions outside its area.

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Before I move on to the area point?

It is the area point that is critical. We are talking about limiting the power of an authority to act outside its own area. I have no problem with Kent fire brigade buying specialist animal rescue equipment and offering that service

outside its area, but I would expect that to be done under other arrangements in the Bill at the request of other authorities, not to have Kent fire service rampaging across southern England offering a service without being requested to do so. That seems to be allowed for under the clause.

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is important to have similar powers, in relation to subsection (2), to allow fire and rescue authorities to prepare to respond to situations that they have identified as local priorities. He mentioned existing schemes. Existing mutual schemes deal with the fire and rescue authority's core functions. However, if a fire and rescue authority were performing a rescue in relation to an event under clause 11, it would be undesirable for it to stop because the event crossed a fire and rescue authority boundary.

I shall give an example. In an area with a large inland waterway, a fire and rescue authority may be responding to water-bound life-threatening incidents. It would be inappropriate to call a halt to such rescue simply because the person in question had drifted out of the authority's area and it was not empowered to cross the boundary to effect a rescue. In order to provide such a service, it would need to plan ahead.

I detect another element of paranoia about regionalism. We are rooted in the fears of the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to give him reassurance that the provisions are nothing to do with regionalism. We are discussing a sensible measure to bring about the sort of change that local authorities and fire and rescue authorities believe they need to provide a better service.

Amendment No. 64 would also add an unhelpful ''for the avoidance of doubt'' provision. It sets out that nothing in clause 11 should be taken to grant immunity from criminal or civil action in respect of action taken by an authority under subsection (1). The amendment is unnecessary. Fire and rescue authorities are answerable for their actions in law. Amendment No. 64 would cast doubt on whether the actions of the fire and rescue authority to discharge other functions under the Bill would be immune from civil or criminal action.

With those points of clarification, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

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

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.

It was very clear.

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.