Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill

I am, of course, willing to give those people extra protection—the debate is about the most effective mechanism for doing that. If the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully, he will have heard my commitment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West to work with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that the sentencing guidelines mechanism, which does not exist in Scotland, is used to ensure a more effective penalty. Clear evidence exists to show that a separate offence does not necessarily produce lengthier sentences. There is a specific offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and in some ways, it is common sense to have such an offence. Police are different from other emergency service workers because obstructing or assaulting a police officer is often part of a pattern of criminality. Someone who tries to impede a police officer might be trying to prevent their own capture and conviction and that is one of the reasons for the separate offence. However, let us consider the sentencing for that offence, which carries the same maximum penalty as that suggested in the Bill. The penalty is the same as that for common assault. In the past two years, however, those sentenced to custody for assaulting a police officer have received slightly lower sentences than those convicted of common assault. In 2003, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.8 months as opposed to three months for common assault. In 2004, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.9 months compared with 3.1 months for common assault. I concede that the differences are not large but they show that a specific offence does not guarantee a more effective penalty. Let us not split hairs—let us focus on what we agree about. Hon. Members from all parties want someone who is convicted of assault on an emergency service worker to receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness with which the House views such an offence. That is common ground.