Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Bill

I congratulate the Father of the House on his success in allowing the Bill to proceed so smoothly and quickly through the House. I repeat the words that were offered on Second Reading and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert): the Conservatives wish the Bill to proceed as quickly and smoothly as possible to the statute book. I offer my apologies to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend. He cannot be with us today because he is in his constituency seeking to protect the jobs of emergency workers in the NHS and other health workers who are threatened by incipient cuts to the health service in Sussex, and indeed Surrey. We wish the Bill to proceed because we recognise that it performs three valuable functions and in that respect we are more than happy to give it our full support. First, it plugs a legislative gap. We are aware that, at the moment, legislative protection is afforded to the police as they go about their duties. Everyone knows that if they assault a police officer, it is an aggravated offence for which they will face a tougher sentence. As a result of the Bill being passed, a signal will be sent that to obstruct an emergency worker, whether it is an NHS worker, a fireman or someone who is working for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or the coastguard, will also mean facing a particularly severe punishment. In that respect, we wholeheartedly support the legislation. As well as plugging a gap, the Bill sends a message. We do not always support legislation that sends a message, because sometimes we believe that legislation should not be used so lightly, simply to communicate censoriousness on the part of the House. However, by sending a message, the Bill can have a welcome deterrent effect. We have heard from a number of hon. Members this morning about the increase in the number of incidents of attacks on, in particular, ambulance workers. There is a clear need for legislative action to ensure that those tempted to go down that path understand that the House and the Government wish to prevent them from behaving in that way. The third reason why we want the Bill passed is because we believe that those who obstruct the work of emergency workers are guilty of a double crime: not only are they interfering criminally with the work of public servants, they are endangering the lives of others. As well as interfering in the effective provision of a public service, they are maximising the risk to others, whom those public servants are attempting to assist. In that respect, because those who commit such crimes are guilty of a double assault, we welcome the Bill. As my hon. Friend said earlier, we wish to enter one note of regret. The original legislation that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) introduced was based on the Bill that was introduced in the Scottish Parliament. For the sake of ease of legislative drafting, he attempted to introduce a Bill that was, in many respects, almost identical to the Scottish legislation. As someone who was born in Edinburgh and raised in Aberdeen, I am well aware that Scottish and English law are distinct from one another, and it may not be the case that Bills introduced in Scotland can have identical application in England. However, in order to introduce his Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had to negotiate with the Home Office, as he did in a spirit of good faith, and it insisted on dropping the aspect of the Bill that dealt specifically with assault. That is a matter of regret because, as has been spelled out by almost all hon. Members who have spoken, the incidence of direct physical assaults on emergency workers has increased in recent years, and legislation to deal with that would be welcome. Indeed, the Government recognised that in their manifesto, which says:"““we will introduce tougher sentences for carrying replica guns, for those involved in serious knife crimes and for those convicted of assaulting workers serving the public.””" They have accepted legislative changes to deal with those carrying replica guns and with serious knife crimes, but when it comes to protecting workers who serve the public, they do not want legislation and say instead that the Sentencing Guidelines Council will do our work for us. We all remember that in recent weeks some of the decisions taken in court by judges acting in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines Council have earned the criticism of Home Office Ministers. How can it be that judges who are operating according to the Sentencing Guidelines Council were excoriated by the Home Secretary two weeks ago but are now, according to what Home Office Ministers have said, to be the agents of the protection that we all feel that is required? The onus is on the Minister to explain precisely how the Sentencing Guidelines Council will give effect to the feeling of the House to ensure that emergency workers get the protection they deserve. He must also explain why legislative action is not specifically required in this case. What is it about emergency workers that means that they do not deserve the same legislative protection that he has extended to other categories of potential victims in the range of legislation that he is introducing? I look forward to hearing from the Minister as he provides enlightenment on this and many other topics. It remains only for me to say that we congratulate the Father of the House on introducing this much needed legislation. Our only regret is that his original intent was blunted by the Home Office.