---

Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): I think it is agreed across the House that we are discussing a very serious problem. Assaults on people at work in the emergency services and our public services are at an unacceptably high level. The latest figures show that in 2004–05 there were more than 11,000 physical assaults against national health service acute services staff. I know from just one of the NHS trusts serving my constituency that there were 163 physical assaults on staff in the last financial year, and 183 the year before.
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 531
 
That brings home to me the scale of the problem. There were more than 1,300 physical assaults on NHS ambulance staff across the country in 2004–05.

We also know that this is a growing problem. In my local ambulance service, violent incidents against staff increased from 221 in 2001–02 to 300 the following year. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will be able to relay the fact that this is not only an issue of great public concern but one that is clearly increasing, and therefore merits serious consideration of what further measures are necessary to tackle it.

Hon. Members have expressed some objections to the Bill and it is worth our reflecting on them. Whereas there seems to be a consensus across the House that a new offence of impeding an emergency service worker is needed, reservations have been expressed—I suspect that we may hear them from the Minister—about creating a new offence of assaulting an emergency services worker. It is contended, first, that existing legislation is adequate to deal with such assaults; and, secondly, that a specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker or somebody working in public services might make it harder to prosecute those offences. It is argued against those views that, as has been pointed out, there is already a separate offence in Scotland, giving protection specifically to emergency service workers, passed by the Scottish Parliament last year, and there is of course an existing separate offence of assaulting a police officer.

At one stage the Government did take the view that specific measures were necessary to deal with this problem. The Labour election manifesto said,

"we will introduce tougher sentences. . . for those convicted of assaulting workers serving the public."

But those tougher sentences did not feature in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) moved amendments to create an offence of violence against a public servant, addressing broadly the same problem that this Bill seeks to address, the Government rejected that approach, preferring to rely on sentencing guidelines as expressed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, that assaults on people working in the public sector are aggravated. It is true that the number of convictions for attacking, for example, NHS staff has risen. However, we must consider whether Parliament needs to send a stronger signal both to express concern about assaults on emergency service workers and to deter people from committing such offences in future.

My judgment is that we need to send such a signal, partly because of the increase in the number of offences and the scale of the problem that exists and partly because, as has been pointed out, the effect of assaulting or impeding an emergency service worker could put the public at risk if those workers are taken out of action. So harm is being done not just to the people who work in the services, but to the public broadly. Therefore, on public policy grounds, a specific offence or an aggravated offence to stop that may well be justified.

I am not persuaded by what I have heard so far about the Government's reasons for rejecting a specific offence of assaulting an emergency services worker or, indeed, of creating some kind of aggravated offence, not least because Parliament has accepted already that certain offences should be considered as aggravated—for
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 532
 
instance, racially motivated attacks—and it has proved perfectly possible to prosecute people for those offences. I am not sure whether the obstacles that people sometimes claim will be placed in the way of the specific offence are necessarily viable, but I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say.

After examining the Bill and listening to what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and other Members said, I share the consensus that these issues should be examined in Committee. People who work in public services do a vital job, often in difficult circumstances, and we all rely on them. The House should send a very clear signal that we believe that assaults on ambulance staff, firefighters, doctors and nurses are totally unacceptable. For that reason, we support the Bill. I hope that it will receive a Second Reading and that these detailed issues will be examined in Committee, so that the precise need for and wording of additional measures can be scrutinised. I very much hope that the Government will share what is clearly a great deal of support for the Bill on both sides of the House.

11.32 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I start by thanking the Father of the House for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate the consensus that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House in our admiration of and support for emergency services workers, who risk their lives for us all regularly. The emergency services represent a powerful statement of the way in which we in society care for one another. It is an important symbol of our civilisation that they provide a platform of security on which we can depend when we face an emergency, thus helping us to work better as a society and the individual members of society to feel more secure in facing the challenges that we face.

We have had a classic Second Reading debate. We have demonstrated broad consent about the issues. We have raised queries about the precise way in which the Bill might deal with the issues about which hon. Members are concerned. I hope to be able to deal fully with two fundamental issues—first, how we deal with assaults on emergency workers, and secondly, how we deal with those who impede emergency workers.

Ann Keen: Will my hon. Friend explain the current offence of impeding a firefighter, because it is still not quite clear to me?

Fiona Mactaggart: Certainly. That is an important part of the point that I was about to come to, which was raised by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). Is there a gap in the law, and if so, where are the spaces? That is a perfectly proper question to address. We have an offence under section 44(3) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is in force and states:

"A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he obstructs or interferes with an employee of a fire and rescue authority taking action authorised under this section."

In practice, one of the frustrations for the fire services has been that it has sometimes proved quite difficult to fulfil all the requirements of section 44 for a specific
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 533
 
offence, because a fire officer must show that he has been "authorised in writing" to do certain things. That can be a quite laborious process, and it seems to be one of the things that has occasionally inhibited the success of prosecutions.

The House is absolutely agreed: in every contribution, I have heard a belief that we should have an effective prosecutorial mechanism to protect emergency service workers from being obstructed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for his willingness to use the Bill to create a simpler, more straightforward offence of impeding or obstructing that could perhaps fulfil all the specific requirements under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Of course there is no such offence in relation to ambulance workers, but he is trying to create a simple offence, whereby we could deal with the gap in the law for emergency service workers across the board.

Mr. Bailey: Perhaps the Minister will address this point in the fullness of time; but just in case, may I pre-emptively ask her what assessment has been made of how the Scottish legislation has worked so far? As we have a body of legislation that covers the offence of assault, what assessment has she made of why problems have arisen in bringing sufficient prosecutions to deter this form of activity?

Fiona Mactaggart: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not immediately respond to those questions, because I believe that what I will say later will answer them. If I do not fully answer them, I invite him to intervene on me again, but I hope that it will be easier for hon. Members to hear the response to those points later in my speech, because it will then make better sense to them.

I shall deal with the question of whether we need legislation on assault—I will refer to the Scottish experience—and with whether there are gaps in the offence of impeding. I have already addressed to a degree some of the defects in the existing legislation, but are there further gaps? If there is a gap in the law, who should be covered and what action should be taken? Is this all a matter for the courts—or, as some hon. Members have said, can it be dealt with by taking further action, including the work that we are already doing with the respect action plan and so on?

Assault is the most serious aspect, and following my assurances and explanations the Father of the House, who is promoting the Bill, has generously agreed to focus not on assault but on amendments to address a gap in the law. Comprehensive measures in our existing law already deal properly with assault and attacks in a wide range of circumstances. The offences include common assault, actual bodily harm, which is committed if a person's injuries are more than superficial, and grievous bodily harm, which is a very serious offence. Shockingly, emergency service workers have been the victims of those more serious forms of assault. A wide range of penalties can be imposed for the different criminal behaviours associated with assault and other violence. The sentence for common assault can be a maximum of six months' imprisonment or a fine
 
3 Mar 2006 : Column 534
 
of up to £5,000, and the sentence for grievous bodily harm, manslaughter or murder can be life imprisonment.

Those offences cover everyone, so we do not think that we need a specific offence of assault on emergency workers. Such a provision would add nothing to the existing law, and, as I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), a specific offence could cause complications because a person's specific circumstances at the time of the assault would have to be proved, which could have the unintentional effect of inhibiting a successful prosecution. I hope that we will be able to amend the Bill substantially in Committee. It would provide for a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment for such an offence, but that is the same penalty as the maximum sentence for common assault. The provision would thus add nothing practical to the protection that the law already offers.

---