Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister one question about the clause. I think of it as the channel tunnel clause. There may be other applications, but the channel tunnel application seems to require an answer. If a fire and rescue authority has the power to act outside its area, that power may be exercised under this clause at sea or under the sea. That is fairly uncontentious. The restrictions contained in the Bill, including the restrictions on charging for recovery at more than cost, will apply to work carried out at sea or under the sea.

The Kent and Medway combined fire authority, as I understand it, provides fire cover for the channel tunnel. There is a permanently manned fire station at the tunnel entrance, which is staffed by Kent fire authority personnel and managed by the Kent fire authority. Although under the present regime the authority is not allowed to charge for firefighting interventions, it charges the operators of the channel tunnel substantial sums for maintaining capacity.

I guess that if we were having a broad philosophical discussion, the distinction between fighting fires and maintaining capacity might be rather academic. Most people will call the fire service to fight a fire in their home or building only very rarely, but they will want to ensure that capacity is maintained 24/7 should they wish to call upon it. The Minister will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to engage him in a philosophical debate about capacity charging, but can he give me the reassurance that nothing in the clause—I will limit it to the clause—will change the arrangements that the Kent and Medway combined fire authority has in relation to its operations in the channel tunnel? What discussions have he or his officials had with the Kent and Medway fire authority and the channel tunnel operators about the clause? How will it impact on that authority and the arrangements that are in place for fire and rescue cover in the channel tunnel?

The clause will allow the fire and rescue service to continue to be employed to deal with emergencies both at sea and under the sea. That involves more than the channel tunnel. The hon. Gentleman highlights the role of Kent and Medway fire and rescue authority, but this has a wider application.

I should have made it clear that I cannot think of another sub-sea structure that extends beyond the territorial sea of the United Kingdom, for which a UK fire authority might reasonably have responsibility.

The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not believe that there are any others, but this could allow a contribution to rescue at sea beyond the territorial waters. That is why it covers operations both at and under the sea. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a general duty to manage the response of UK authorities to territorial incidents

in territorial waters and beyond. The MCA does not maintain its own core of firefighters, but will enter into agreements with other service providers, including fire and rescue services, to provide a response to fires and other emergencies at sea, and to provide fire crews equipped and trained to undertake such work. Under clause 9, the Secretary of State will have the power to impose a duty on a fire and rescue authority in relation to emergencies offshore.

A little glitch has occurred, which is to do with the ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for such work. That was covered by the provision for the fire and rescue authorities to charge under the Marine Safety Act 2003, which amended section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947. It has unfortunately come to light that in the repeal of the 1947 Act, that provision will be lost. We will undoubtedly need to introduce an appropriate amendment in future to resolve that issue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, because it has provided an opportunity for me to alert Committee members to it.

I have just been advised that technically, under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, the channel tunnel is part of Kent, so does not extend beyond Britain's territorial waters—an interesting observation. [Interruption.] I am not sure how the French will respond to that, but we do not want to risk getting into such difficult territory far from our area of responsibility.

The Minister confirms that there will be no change to the arrangements. I only hope that he will reply to the sedentary observation of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon that perhaps we could investigate the possibility of extending the channel tunnel to Paris—and one day, if we have the money, down to the Bordeaux vineyards.

I was a little generous in allowing that discussion to continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.