I beg to move amendment No. 56, in

clause 13, page 7, line 16, after 'incurred', insert

'in providing such assistance under subsection (2) or'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 67, in

clause 13, page 7, line 17, at end insert

'and any liability to any third party arising from the operation of the scheme.'.

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—

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.

It is for the Committee to determine that. We must wait till 5 o'clock.

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

time and work very well in practice, but I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's clarification.

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.

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.

Clause 3 refers to ''participating in the scheme'' and

''any expenses incurred in taking measures to secure the efficient operation of the scheme''.

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.

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

authority is acting as the agent of the first. That is what I was hoping the Under-Secretary could confirm.

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.

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.

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.

I want to address a concern that we have about clause 13 that would have been addressed by amendment No. 66. Subsection (1) states:

''A fire and rescue authority must, so far as practicable, enter into a reinforcement scheme with other fire and rescue authorities.''

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.