Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Bill

As Members will realise, I have time to give only a very brief explanation of the Government’s view of the new clause and associated amendments. I begin by thanking Members for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire(Mr. Knight) for the thoughtful, considerate and careful way in which he spoke to the new clause. The new clause would provide a defence for obstructing an emergency worker if the emergency circumstances took place on the defendant’s property or affected only him or his property. In addition, it would provide that a defendant would have a defence if he were ““only a passive observer””, and is therefore probably intended to deal with unintentional passive obstruction. Amendment No. 13 would delete the phrase ““without reasonable excuse””. The defence in new clause 1 would replace the current defence of ““without reasonable excuse””. The crucial point, which I hope will reassure Members, is that ““without reasonable excuse”” is a clear and simple formulation that enables all the circumstances of a given case to be taken into account by the courts, including those listed in new clause 1. On the proposed ““passive observer”” defence, the term ““without reasonable excuse”” already provides a defence for obstruction that is unintentional and for a good reason. Amendment No. 7 would insert a requirement for an emergency worker travelling to the scene of the emergency to be in a vehicle with a flashing blue light, and would therefore reduce the protection offered by the offence. Not all ambulances use such lights—air ambulances, for example, do not—and nor do coastguards and lifeboat crews. Clearly, we want those services to be included within the legislation’s scope. If amendment No. 8 were accepted, the offence would not apply to acts by an emergency worker preparatory to dealing with emergency circumstances, which would weaken the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) explained why we think it appropriate that the offence apply in that way. If amendment No. 10 were accepted, the offence would not apply where an ambulance or fire appliance was responding to an emergency call and it later emerged that the situation was not an emergency. However, the offence needs to apply to obstructing a worker responding in good faith to what they believe is, or may be, an emergency. In the light of those brief comments, I hope that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will see fit to withdraw the new clause.