Clause 47 - False alarms of fire
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
3:45 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The Under-Secretary said that some, if not most, of those 30 offences would be susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act. If it is some and not most, he may have a case, but I suspect that it will turn out to be most, if not all. If the figures are available, I shall try to uncover them.
The Under-Secretary may roll his eyes as much as he likes, but he has only himself to blame for a very effective defence against expanding the clause. He pointed out that the only circumstances in which the clause is relevant is when the individual runs to a fire station to make a false alarm of fire in person at the fire station. Merely running down the street shouting ''Fire! Fire!'' so that a neighbour calls the fire brigade is not good enough because that is susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act, as the Under-Secretary made clear. Going into the local police station and getting the police to call the fire brigade is susceptible to prosecution under the Communications Act. As I understood the Under-Secretary's explanation, anything other than a direct non-electronic transmission of a message to an employee of a fire and rescue authority—that is, anything other than being in earshot of the fire and rescue authority employee while crying ''Fire!''—would not give any reason to prosecute under the clause. In those circumstances, I wonder whether the Under-Secretary is right to assert that it should remain.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary will not write to me because I always enjoy receiving letters after Committee sittings. I shall have to try to obtain the information from another source and see whether it is some if not most, or most if not all.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.