I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. How far the employer can be responsible for the unquantifiable number of likely attacks on employees is an interesting point.It is incumbent on employers to ensure every possible safeguard for their employees, but some attacks are completely unexpected and executed in more and more imaginative ways. The fallback is that there must be protection in law. We must define the offence of impeding and the groups of people who would be covered. We must also decide which groups of employees would be covered by additional legal safeguards over and above those which every member of the community already enjoys—if that is the right word. Any member of the public who is assaulted has had an offence committed against them. If emergency workers who are assaulted are protected by a special law, will that raise the threshold of proof? Will there have to be additional evidence? If so, I am slightly worried that introducing a special offence might make securing a conviction more difficult.
We all intend, I hope, to ensure that emergency workers are protected in law, that the laws are workable, and that cases can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion in the courts.
Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Angela Watkinson
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 3 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c515 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:57:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304714
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304714
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304714