| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentioned the impeding offence. Is that not the assurance that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was seeking? Whereas there is a law of assault that could apply in any case, the police have protection against assault and obstruction in the course of their duty. The loophole in our law is that there is no offence of obstructing the ambulance or fire service on the way to deal with an emergency. Is that not a loophole that the Bill plugs?
Mr. Williams: Yes, and an important one. The emergency services welcome the Bill as an important addition to their protection. Fines do not deal effectively deal with juveniles because they either cannot pay them or do not pay them, or both. That is where the package of support measures will help. That can come only from Government and will be set out by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): I am interested, too, in the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 makes clear provision to achieve the same aim, provided the Government introduce a statutory instrument to include offences in secondary legislation. Has the right hon. Gentleman explored that and the provisions of the Police Act 1996 with the Government?
Mr. Williams: The Bill gives us an immediate vehicle to achieve the desired result, so that ceases to be necessary.
The Bill, as I said, will be backed by measures to be announced by the Government. It has been welcomed by Barry Dixon of Manchester on behalf of chief fire officers.
Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention an incident that occurred in the west midlands? A young boy impaled himself on his bicycle. Other young people stood around and, to use that perverse phrase, indulged in happy slapping—that is, taking photographs on their mobile phones of his pain and discomfiture. The emergency services arrived and the young people surrounding the lad obstructed them and prevented them from giving the young lad the attention he desperately needed. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill and the supporting measures from the Government will address such incidents?
Mr. Williams:
The aim is to address such incidents when they happen, and, more importantly, to stop them
3 Mar 2006 : Column 511
happening in the first place. That is much more difficult and requires a major educative programme, which I would ask the Government to introduce. I hope the Minister will give some reassurances on that.
Where the Government and I differed—here I shall delight the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who finds himself in an unusual alliance—was on the issue of assault. I accept that there is legislation that should and would provide for the same penalties as the Bill envisages. The problem is that it is used either rarely or not at all. The other emergency services see that the police have separate legislation embodying the same sentences and that cases involving the police are taken through to successful prosecution and sentencing, whereas the fire brigades and ambulance services have difficulty with such cases. That is why we are asking for a separate Act.
This is where I shall destroy the weekend of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government and I had discussions, and they made it clear that there is a sticking point for them, so enamoured are they of the argument made by the right hon. Gentleman. There is a sticking point to the extent that I could have lost the whole Bill—
Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says "Oh!", but he said he supports the Bill. The choice I had to make, which also had to be made by fire brigades officers, the Fire Brigades Union and the ambulance workers, was over whether they wanted to lose their new defence of taking action against impeding in order to go down fighting for legislation that would almost certainly be lost due to means that we all well understand in this place—being talked out either today or, most certainly, on Report, which is the death ground of so many private Members' Bills.
Instead—not with enthusiasm, but in the hope that the good will is genuine in respect of what has been offered in return—I have agreed that in Committee we shall remove the repetitious element dealing with assault. I want my Bill to go through, so I am willing to rely on the written guarantees I have received, which the Minister has undertaken to reiterate today. She has particularly assured me that she will try to ensure that there are measures to achieve more prosecutions under existing law—it seems to be the will and machinery that are lacking—and that the Government will try to improve the sentencing guidelines. In that respect, they envisage assault on an emergency worker being treated as an aggravated offence. It would therefore involve a higher sentence.
Mr. Forth:
I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the Minister has given him an undertaking that measures will be taken to ensure that there are more prosecutions. I would be interested if he explained that further, because I had always understood that a great alibi of this Government, and indeed of the previous one, was that prosecutions were entirely a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, so how would the Government deliver on that undertaking?
3 Mar 2006 : Column 512
Mr. Williams: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I wonder how impartiality could be retained in that context, but Ministers indicated that that is what they are willing to try to do. I do not understand how the Home Office works—very few people do—and I look forward to an exposition from the Minister.
Mr. McGovern: My right hon. Friend mentioned protection for emergency workers. I am intrigued by whether community support officers are included in the Bill's definition of a constable. If they are not, would they be excluded from that protection?
Mr. Williams: I honestly do not know the answer, although I shall try to establish it. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is more of an expert in those legal matters, might deal with that on behalf of the Government.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I wonder whether the Government pointed out in their discussions with the right hon. Gentleman the fact that, by taking action in the health service, they have been able to increase the number of prosecutions by ensuring that instances are pursued, properly reported to the police and looked into, rather than disregarded, as can sometimes happen in Government services.
Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The advantage of dialogue between Ministers and Back Benchers was shown on this occasion, because I was able to enlighten the Minister on the activities of NHS security management and the seventeenfold increase in the number of prosecutions it has brought. That shows the value of a catalyst, as well as the inadequacies of the CPS, which are equally worrying. One is bound to wonder how someone other than the CPS can show a will to enforce legislation, over which the CPS sometimes seems dilatory.
In relation to the points made by the Minister about sentencing guidelines—we all know how those work—my doubt, which I put to her, is this: if she can do this now that I have introduced my Bill, why on earth has she not done it already? Months ago, in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland was making the same argument—we can get the Sentencing Guidelines Council to alter its guidelines to the courts—yet, as far as I can establish, up to the time of my consultations with the Minister there had been no progress in that respect.
It is not my intention to labour the issue; the case is made. I have said that I would substantially amend the Bill in the House of Lords—gosh, that would be an achievement. I am due to retire at the end of this Parliament, but I assure the House that no one has made any offers to me at this stage. At the moment, I should confine myself to a Committee Room Upstairs, inadequate as it may be.
May I make it clear to the Minister that, while I accept her assurances, which I genuinely believe were made in good faith—I have a high regard and respect for her—she has to realise that the Members of Parliament sitting here, our colleagues who are unable to be present, the emergency services and the press will monitor performance against the commitments given today? Now it is up to the Government.
3 Mar 2006 : Column 513
10.8 am
Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): I commend the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on his good intentions in introducing the Bill, and I am sure there is consensus across the House that attacks on emergency services workers are disgraceful and abhorrent. However, my concern is that the existing law should be able to protect emergency workers from attacks of all sorts made during the execution of their duty. That will be the thrust of my brief comments.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned genuine emergencies in which emergency services—whether the police, ambulance crews or fire service personnel—deal with victims, such as members of the public whom they are attempting to help. However, there are additional victims when the emergency services come under attack. Such attacks impede them as they attempt to provide assistance to the victims of a road accident, a fire or whatever it happens to be, thereby exacerbating the effect of those attacks.
Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has warned about the increase, in communities across the country, in what he describes as "recreational attacks" carried out by young people for their amusement. He says:
There might well be poor youth facilities and housing in those areas, but that is not an excuse. I would like to see parents brought to book to answer for the bad behaviour of their unsupervised children. If those young people are below the age of criminal responsibility, the parent should be held responsible. Parents should know where their children are and what they are doing while they are outside the home. If children cannot be trusted to behave in an acceptable way, parents should entertain them in their homes, and teach them the difference between right and wrong.
Fire service personnel in particular are victims of hurled insults and spitting, a particularly nasty habit. Such actions do not cause permanent injury but are exceedingly demoralising, and such seriously antisocial behaviour affects the way in which fire crews are able to go about their duties. I would like legislation to cover that, if it is not covered already.
I concur absolutely that these are serious offences that must be dealt with. I have two caveats, however, about what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do. First, I feel that the existing law should and could deal with all the offences that he has mentioned. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and sentencing guidelines ought to be able to deal with all those serious offences. There is no doubt that they need to be dealt with, and that there should be more prosecutions, but I remain to be convinced that existing law does not allow the police to bring that about.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |