Its a bit more complicated than Taxistaxing says. Vicariously liability is very simple. If you're acting in the course of your employment and you are negligent and cause loss to someone, the employer is liable for your negligence. That deals with your liability to 3rd parties. This clause is not about the principle of vicarious liability which are common to all common-law jurisdictions.
This clause is something else and deals with your contractual relationship with your employer. In essence it says that if you have been negligent, i.e. in breach of the duty you owe to others at common law, then your employer can come after you under your contract of employment for what they (or their insurers) have to pay out. Simple negligence is one thing but recklessness is quite another. Recklessness essentially means, knowing the risks, you decide deliberately to take that risk. A reckless act may well be one outside the scope of your employment anyway so is rather a red-herring.
So basically the clauses read as whole acknowledge the common law vicarious liability principle and say that if you are negligent then not only have you no personal liability (30.1), but we'll indemnify you for all claims made against you due to your negligence (30.2). However the clause (30.3) says that if we the employer are vicariously liable due to your negligence we can come after you for our outlay. It contradicts the indemnities because as I said in my first post your employer would only be liable in the first place if you have been negligent.