| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fiona Mactaggart: I am, of course, willing to give those people extra protection—the debate is about the most effective mechanism for doing that. If the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully, he will have heard my commitment to my right hon. Friend to work with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that the sentencing guidelines mechanism, which does not exist in Scotland, is used to ensure a more effective penalty.
Clear evidence exists to show that a separate offence does not necessarily produce lengthier sentences. There is a specific offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, and in some ways it is common sense to have such an offence. Police are different from other emergency service workers because obstructing or assaulting a police officer is often part of a pattern of criminality. Someone who tries to impede a police officer might be trying to prevent their own capture and conviction and that is one of the reasons for the separate offence.
However, let us consider the sentencing for that offence, which carries the same maximum penalty as that suggested in the Bill. The penalty is the same as that for common assault. In the past two years, however, those sentenced to custody for assaulting a police officer have received slightly lower sentences than those convicted of common assault. In 2003, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.8 months as opposed to three months for common assault. In 2004, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.9 months compared with 3.1 months for common assault. I concede that the differences are not large but they show that a specific offence does not guarantee a more effective penalty.
Let us not split hairs—let us focus on what we agree about. Hon. Members from all parties want someone who is convicted of assault on an emergency service worker to receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness with which the House views such an offence. That is common ground.
Mr. Bailey:
I fully understand my hon. Friend's point but I am worried about the statistics that she cited. It appears that the courts regard assaulting a policeman as less significant than assaulting a member of the public.
3 Mar 2006 : Column 538
Are discussions being held with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to assess why that is the case and whether anything is being done about it?
Fiona Mactaggart: I am having discussions. I had intended a little later in my remarks to describe how the Sentencing Guidelines Council operates, so I shall proceed to that if it helps hon. Members. I have mentioned the existing sentencing guidelines—the over-arching principle of seriousness. A consultation by the Sentencing Guidelines Council is under way, dealing with violent crime and specifically assault. We will work with the council to ensure that it is fully aware of the circumstances of emergency workers and the unique dangers that offences of assault or obstruction can involve when they are directed against emergency workers.
Let us be clear about the nature of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It is not just a guidance council. It is an important body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. It has seven judicial members, including a district judge and a lay justice, and four non-judicial members with experience of one or more of the following—policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence and the interests of victims. In the process of producing guidelines, there is wide consultation and an opportunity for Ministers and Parliament through the Home Affairs Committee to contribute to consideration of what should be contained in the guidelines. The council is supported by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, an independent body originally set up to provide advice to the Court of Appeal.
Mr. David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) rose—
Fiona Mactaggart: I am trying to be generous in taking interventions, but the difficulty is that I could end up being confusing. I will, however, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Evennett: I have listened with great interest to the Minister. Her approach is very worthy, but what is needed is action, not more consultation and talk. We want something done.
Fiona Mactaggart:
As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, we already have action in the overriding principles of December 2004. We are in the process of developing the sentencing guidelines on violent crime. The process has started. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a slightly lengthy process, but I predict that it will come to a conclusion at about the time that we would be able to implement the offence proposed in the Bill. It is not an instant process. We are dealing with sentencing for crime so it is, rightly, a properly
3 Mar 2006 : Column 539
elaborated process, but a powerful process. It is not vague. It has specific aspects, including a duty properly to consult, and I do not accept that that is a bad thing.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am about to describe how the process will work with respect to violent crime, but I shall first give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ellwood: I must go back to the statistics, which show how damaging the current system is. We want to move the level of protection for the fire service and the ambulance service up to that for the police, yet the statistics prove that even the police are not getting the protection that they want. Surely we should consider compiling a new set of laws that bring all three services up to the same standard.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not understood. I do not mean to patronise him, but I pointed out that introducing a separate offence does not guarantee the outcome that he and I both want—that a sentence for an assault on a worker who is protecting the public should reflect the seriousness with which Parliament views such assaults. We both agree on that.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the way to achieve that is by creating a separate and specific offence. I have pointed out how the use of a separate and specific offence in relation to the police does not achieve that end. However, I am in the middle of describing—I will finish, and when I finish I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the point that I am making—the way in which the sentencing guidelines procedure works, and the fact that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is in the process of consulting about how it should treat violent crimes, including assault.
Jim Dowd : On that point, part of the difficulty is that my hon. Friend has not outlined the full statistical position on assaulting a police officer compared with common assault because she has not told us either the difference in the number of prosecutions in each category or the conviction rates vis-à-vis both categories.
My hon. Friend has spent a lot of time talking about assault on individuals. What about attacks on vehicles being used by emergency services in their work? I am particularly minded of the recent FA cup match between Manchester United and Liverpool. A Manchester United player suffered an horrific injury and had to be taken from the ground in an ambulance, which was pelted with bottles and glasses by a scandalous minority, although I do not know whether they were Liverpool supporters or not. Would such disgraceful behaviour be covered by a separate offence of obstruction and impeding?
Fiona Mactaggart:
It would, and the point my hon. Friend raises relates to the biggest gap in the law. There is no offence involving protection from being impeded or obstructed available to ambulance workers, and he has given a particularly gross example of impeding and obstructing. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous offer to ensure that the Bill could provide us
3 Mar 2006 : Column 540
with an opportunity to deal with that lacuna in the law, but I think I owe an explanation to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked how I can ensure that the seriousness of assaults on emergency services workers can properly be reflected through the sentencing guidelines procedure.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel has already started the consultation on draft guidelines covering sentencing for all violent crimes against the person, so, as I have already said, we are in the middle of that process. Sentencing guidelines will be issued in due course, following the consultation and consideration by the council. We expect them to reiterate that the victim being a public servant is a serious aggravating factor in any offence of violence and to explain that attacks on any victim who is serving the public can have a serious impact on the ability to deliver the public service. In this example, that specifically increases the seriousness of the offence.
Nia Griffith : Is my hon. Friend aware of how much support there is out there among the public for ensuring that we send a clear message that any form of assault or violent crime is unacceptable? Only recently in my constituency, 2,000 signatures were collected, asking for an increase in a sentence felt to be too lenient for, in this instance, deliberate manslaughter. I beg her to look carefully at sentencing for violent crimes, which is such an emotive issue in the public eye. It is important that we say clearly that no civilised society can ever tolerate any form of assault or violence against the person.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |