The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona
Mactaggart): It is a pleasure to support this private
Member’s Bill under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton.
We are having something like a
mini-Second Reading debate on a non-stand part debate for clause 1. I
wish to deal with the points that hon. Members have made, because they
go to the heart of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. We are
trying to get rid of a very particular and serious wrong that often
leads to further wrongs—the often wilful obstruction
ofblue-light emergency workers in the course of their duty of
trying to protect members of the public. Frankly, such activity is
unacceptable and outrageous, which is precisely why we made the
commitments on these matters set out in our election manifesto. I am
glad to have the opportunity to describe how we are delivering on those
commitments, and how the Bill will help us to do so.
Opposition Members have
referred to provisions for racially aggravated assaults. That mechanism
was rightly adduced by the Government before we had a process such as
the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The council gives us a tool to be
used in any area where an aggravating factor exists in respect of a
particular offence. Given that we have such a tool, it is wrong not to
use it for the whole range of aggravating factors, including one
already acknowledged in an initial guideline involving people who are
serving the public. The sentencing guidelines formulation on violent
crime that is due to be made available shortly will deal with assault,
and I hope that it will not only deal clearly with someone who is
serving the public, but specifically highlight emergency
workers. The hon.
Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) mentioned social workers.
They are a precise example that goes beyond the main case that we are
dealing with in the Bill and relates not to blue-light type
emergencies, as it were, but to situations thatare full of
the tension, anger and anxiety of anemergency-type
intervention in a family’s life that could put a social worker
at risk. Such situations would be covered by the offence of assaulting
an individual,
which would be aggravated by the fact that the person was serving the
public at the time when they were
assaulted. There is a
very important difference regarding the advice given to procurators
fiscal. That advice sends out a signal of the sort that Opposition
Members mentioned, but it does not have the force of the Sentencing
Guidelines Council, which does much more than send a signal or give
advice. Courts are obliged specifically under law to follow the
guidelines, and if they do not, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides
that they must state publicly in court why they have not. We therefore
have a powerful mechanism to ensure that the status of sentencing
guidelines is much more significant that anything that exists in
Scotland or which has existed previously. That is the appropriate way
in which to deal with aggravation and the fact that the person who has
been assaulted was serving the
public. The hon.
Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) rightly asked how we
will make sure that the signal is heard and how it will be publicised.
Hon. Members will be aware of the Government’s respect campaign.
Such matters are at the heart of that campaign. We shall not just
announce Sentencing Guidelines Council matters in the usual way. It is
right we have an open, consultative process, but the problem is that
the point at which the newspapers will report a matter is when we have
a draft guideline and they want to suggest things that we might wish to
change. I see hon. Friends nodding their heads. Perhaps they are
thinking about the recent proposed draft
guidelines. Such
issues do not receive sufficient publicity after they have been through
the processes of comment and discussion by the Home Affairs Committee
and elsewhere. We need to beef up the publicity. I am happy to give the
Committee an absolute commitment not only that we will build such
matters into the respect campaign, but that when the guideline is
published, we will, probably working with trade unions, other workers
in the field and employers, put energy into ensuring proper public
awareness. We shall
deliver our manifesto commitment for tougher sentences not only by
sending signals, but by putting in place a tough mechanism that courts
have a duty to follow. Comments were made in the Chamber earlier today
about the Home Office over-legislating. When we can create sensible
arrangements in order to deliver the will of the House and the public,
as they expect when they vote in a general election, without primary
legislation, it is right and proper to do so. That will do more than
send a clear signal; it will ensure that things
happen. 2.30
pm I should like
to join in the praise bayed by Members on both sides of the Committee
of my right hon. Friend not only for his determination—we have
had some robust conversations—but for his flexibility. As a
consequence, we can fill a lacuna in legislation. People have been able
to obstruct workers, including ambulance workers in particular, with
impunity, and his Bill gives us an opportunity to provide better public
protection. I am grateful to him for co-operating with the Government
in order to make the Bill simpler, and more effective and flexible. If
it becomes clear that
categories of public employees should be added, we will have the
capacity to add them in future without further primary
legislation. Nick
Herbert: I thank the Minister for her explanation
of some of the differences between Scotland, and England and Wales.
Will she respond to my point about the Labour party manifesto promises
of tougher sentences for certain crimes and about where such sentences
were introduced? I mentioned the carrying of replica guns. Clause 37 of
the Violent Crime Reduction Bill increases the sentence for that
offence from six to 12 months. Why was the Sentencing Guidelines
Council not sufficient in relation to that
offence?
Fiona
Mactaggart: We are talking here about a single offence,
not a separate one. The hon. Gentleman is referring to offences that
are already on the statute book. The original version of my right hon.
Friend’s legislation suggested a separate and new offence, not a
heavier sentence for an existing one. We have an existing offence of
assault and a mechanism that can produce a heavier sentence. We can
obtain that heavier sentence by using the sentencing guidelines tool.
In the cases to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, there is a
specific offence, such as that of carrying a
weapon. Question
put and
negatived. Clause
1 disagreed to.
Clause
2Assaulting
or impeding certain emergency workers responding to emergency
circumstances
Mr.
Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line
16, after ‘who' insert ‘without reasonable
excuse'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
amendments Nos. 3, 4, 14 to 16, 18, 31 and
34.
Mr.
Williams: Amendment No. 2 is quite a useful shorthand
amendment in that it deals with the problem of inadvertence far more
subtly than did the Scottish drafting. I am assured by the Home Office
and legal advisers that the phrase “without reasonable
excuse” covers all that is required, and does so singularly
succinctly. I commend the amendment to the
Committee. In effect,
we have already had the debate on assault, but I shall make one
observation: it is one thing to talk about what a Government Bill can
do, and another to talk about what is achievable with a private
Member’s Bill. I do not wish to tweak the tail of
thehon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, but on his
Benches sits the scourge of the private Member’s Bill, who
delights in sabotaging Bill after Bill, and does so with great ability.
He ominously stood up, early on, and made it clear to me that he would
not tolerate the inclusion of a new offence of assault. Since I like
him very much and admire him enormously—at one time, I had a
similar job to his on the Front Bench, giving us a sort of union
compatibility—I recognised that his
threat was not insignificant. It was more of a threat in some ways than
that of my hon. Friend the Minister, I think. As we shall have only one
day for Report, I responded not just to the pressures from my own
Benches, but to the formidable pressures from the Opposition
Benches. Fiona
Mactaggart: We covered the critical issues relevant to
this group of amendments in an earlier debate. The provision will
create a new offence covering ambulance and lifeboat crews and
coastguards and—it will probably help Committee members if I
reassure them on this point—it will be an anchor for early
interventions using some of the tools that I referred to on Second
Reading, such as acceptable behaviour contracts and so on.
Simplifying the clause by means
of the phrase “without reasonable excuse” will enable us
to get something we all want—success in prosecutions. One of our
initial anxieties about the structure of the original Bill was that it
was relatively laborious. Unfortunately, we have found that legislation
of that kind can be an unintended barrier to success in pursuing
prosecutions.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out
‘assaults,'. No.
4, in page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Alan
Williams.]
Mr.
Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line
4, leave out paragraph
(a).
The
Chairman: With this we may take the following: Amendments
Nos. 6 to 10 and
13. Clause 7 stand
part. Amendment No.
27. New clause
1—Repeals.
Mr.
Williams: Here again, we benefit from the early general
discussion that you permitted, Mr. Benton, because this group of
amendments has substantially been discussed, relating as it does to the
question of definition. The Minister has given her initial answer to
the request for an explanation of the change in the Bill’s
content. I am glad that new clause 1 is included; it is what I consider
a safeguard clause.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 6, in page 2, line 11, at end
insert— ‘(aa) that of a
person employed by a fire and rescue authority in England and
Wales; (ab) in relation to
England and Wales, that of a person (other than a person falling within
paragraph (aa)) whose duties as an employee or as a servant of the
Crown
involve— (i)
extinguishing fires; or (ii)
protecting life and property in the event of a
fire;'. No. 7, in page
2, line 11, at end
insert— ‘(ac) that of a
person employed by a relevant NHS body in the provision of ambulance
services (including air
ambulance services), or of a person providing such services pursuant to
arrangements made by, or at the request of, a relevant NHS
body; (ad) that of a person
providing services for the transport of organs, blood, equipment or
personnel pursuant to arrangements made by, or at the request of, a
relevant NHS
body;'. No.
8, in page 2, line 16, leave
out ‘on a body of
water'. No.
9, in page 2, line 18, at end insert ‘or
recovery'. No. 10, in
page 2, line 19, leave out paragraphs (d)to
(h).—[Mr. Alan
Williams.]
Mr.
Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line
42, leave out from ‘animals' to the end of the
line.
The
Chairman: With this we may take amendment No.
12.
Mr.
Williams: I think that I can move this amendment very
briskly because it is a technical amendment to ensure, albeit with a
different wording from the original, that risk to property is included
in the definition of emergency
circumstances. Amendment
agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 12, in page 2, line 42, at end
insert— ‘( )
serious harm to any building or other property;
or'. No. 13, in page
2, line 44, at end
insert— ‘( ) In subsection
(3) above “relevant NHS body”
means— (a) in relation
to England and Wales, an NHS foundation trust, National Health Service
trust, Special Health Authority, Primary Care Trust or Local Health
Board; (b) in relation to
Northern Ireland, a Health and Social Services trust or Health and
Social Services Board.'—[Mr. Alan
Williams.] Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Nick
Herbert: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I
wonder whether the right hon. Member for Swansea, West or the Minister
can answer a point that has just occurred to me. We have just agreed
amendments relating to protection for people who are employed by a
relevant NHS body to provide services. What is the position of St. John
Ambulance workers? They might not be employed by the NHS but they
provide important ambulance services for the public. I am sure that the
Committee would agree that they should be included in the protections
accorded by this Bill, and I shall be grateful for clarification as to
whether that is the case.
Mr.
Williams: Yes. The Bill covers ambulance workers
generally, the air ambulance and volunteers and voluntary organisations
running ambulances. I hope that that satisfies the hon.
Gentleman.
| 
