UK Parliament / Open data

Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We know that if people have little confidence in the legal system they are less likely to report a crime, whether it be an assault on a firefighter, or other emergency worker, or domestic violence. Domestic violence is now treated much more seriously. The statistics have gone up, not because there is more domestic violence but because women know that if they are subject to it, it will be taken more seriously by the police. Similarly, if we send out the clear message from the House by allowing this Bill to pass through Parliament that we, as parliamentarians, are standing up for our emergency service workers and will not tolerate this, people will report offences more and the legal system will treat them far more seriously. If firefighters cannot carry out their jobs because of violent assaults, the communities in which those assaults are being committed are being put at risk. Fire crews welcome the Bill because it complements the package of measures that are being put in place to tackle the underlying problem. The FBU hopes that it will get widespread support. Some important points have been made in the debate about the position of public service workers generally. The Government’s position is that the Sentencing Guidelines Council can put forward clearer recommendations to judges and that sentencing can be sufficiently flexible to embrace not only emergency service workers such as fire crews and ambulance staff but public sector workers generally. It cannot be right that anybody serving the public, whether as an emergency worker or more generally—I am thinking of the examples given by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—should be subject to assault or abuse. Everybody doing such a job is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity and to have their customers treat them as the customers would expect to be treated by public service workers. The proposed new offence of impeding an emergency worker would plug a significant gap in the law, as we have learned from discussions with the fire service. The current law is somewhat vague. The hon. Member for Upminster mentioned road blocks. A road block may well be an offence, but there is a world of difference between creating an obstruction on the public highway and obstructing a fire engine or an ambulance on its way to an emergency call. One is potentially a relatively trivial offence that is unlikely to be the subject of prosecution, whereas, under the Bill, the other would be subject to prosecution with, it is to be hoped, a severe sentence as a result. The new offence would also deal with the problem of traps. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West gave graphic examples of the kinds of traps that can be set. Whether or not such a trap amounted to an assault, it would certainly impede an emergency worker.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c520-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top