Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Bill

The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I congratulate the Father of the House on getting this far. Private Members’ Bills are indeed fragile vessels, and he has done well to get his Bill to this stage. I also congratulate the Minister on his recent promotion. I hope that he stays on the Labour Front Bench for a very long time, although I also hope that he will shortly be sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber. New clause 1 would introduce a statutory defence for anyone who faces a charge under the Bill. I accept that the Bill now contains the words ““without reasonable excuse”” with reference to someone who may have committed an offence. The new clause, however, seeks to remove any doubt about what is a reasonable excuse in facing a charge under the provisions. We have all encountered someone in uniform who behaves inan over-officious manner. When we are framing legislation, we need to ensure that prosecutions will not be brought in unreasonable circumstances. If the Bill is enacted without new clause 1, it may lead to the prosecution of people who were seeking only to defend their own property or, indeed, who were merely observing an emergency incident. There was a recent case in which a person who was seeking to remove valuable property from his own house was restrained by the police. I do not know all the circumstances of the case, but I am concerned lest an aggressive and unreasonable fire officer dealing with an incident decides without cause to order the owner of a house to remove himself from the property, when the owner may only be seeking to retrieve what can be retrieved from an incident. If someone on their own property seeks to defend their chattels or their animals—they may face the trauma and loss of a building and of many of their belongings, which may not be insured—they should not thereafter find that they are facing court proceedings under this Bill for obstructing or hindering an emergency worker. I hope that the Father of the House will consider adding new clause 1 to the Bill or reassuring me that my concerns can be met in some other way. I will not say anything about amendment No. 13, because I have not appended my name to it, although I do not agree with its thrust and think that the Father of the House is right to include the words in the Bill. Clause 1(3) states:"““a person is responding to emergency circumstances if the person is going anywhere for the purpose of dealing with emergency circumstances there””," and amendment No. 7 would add the words"““in a vehicle displaying a flashing blue light””" to the end of that provision. The emergency services sometimes use vehicles that do not display the traditional flashing blue light, and my concern is that an innocent motorist will unwittingly hinder or obstruct such a vehicle and not be aware that he is doing so. I was recently driving home in the middle lane of the M18, where I encountered a queue of traffic travelling at 60 mph, so I decided to exercise my right to travel at 70 mph and pulled into the offside lane. As I was overtaking the long queue of commercial vehicles travelling at 60 mph, I was approached from behind by a car which was travelling very fast—it was certainly travelling faster than me—and flashing its lights. I assumed that it was an emergency vehicle seeking to attend an emergency, so I pulled over. When the vehicle overtook me and accelerated to regain its speed, which was well in excess of the legal maximum, I was astonished to see that the driver was a yobbish-looking person with a shaved head and earrings—it was clearly not an emergency vehicle, and the driver was just impatient because I was in his path. That incident means that I will never again pull over for a vehicle which flashes its lights at me when I am driving in a proper manner, unless I can see a flashing blue light. If we do not add amendment No. 7, an injustice may occur in which an innocent motorist is prosecuted for unwittingly hindering the progress of an emergency vehicle. Amendment No. 8 is essentially probing in nature, and I will welcome hearing what the Father of the House has to say about it. Under what circumstances would it be right and proper to charge someone with hindering or obstructing an emergency worker who is not actually attending an emergency or travelling to it, but preparing to do so? When does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that this provision would be used? If someone is putting on his coat to go and attend an event and some carol singers knock at his door and wave a collection tin for the local church, are they hindering him because he is preparing to go out? I hope that that is not what he has in mind. Amendment No. 10 would delete the words, ““or may be”” from clause 3(2). Again, it seeks to narrow the circumstances whereby an offence might be committed. With those words in the Bill, a person could be prosecuted even when no emergency had been taking place, but the emergency worker thought that there might be. That provision seems too wide.