Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Wendy Morton and Chris Bryant

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 3 defines an emergency worker. As the Minister has already adumbrated, on Second Reading concerns were expressed about whether the definition had been drawn too tightly. Consequently, amendment 1, which we could call the amendment of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), because she was the person who raised the issue on Second Reading, would add prison custody officers to the definition of emergency workers. That was supported on Second Reading by the Prisons Minister and subsequently by Justice Ministers and others.

Amendment 1 has to be read in conjunction with amendment 3. I have all the detail, if anybody wants it. I can go into each of the subsections of each of the Acts that we are referring to, but it ends up as quite a spaghetti junction of legislation. Amendment 3 specifies the meaning of the terms custodial institution, custody officer, escort functions and prisoner custody officer, via section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006; section 81 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; paragraph (1) of schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

I do not think anybody would have serious problems with those definitions but if Members would like to quiz me on them, I have all the gubbins ready.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear. [Laughter.]

[Wendy Morton]

Fear not—I support the Bill. While we are discussing the definitions, although I have not tabled an amendment, a couple of specific points were raised in the Chamber on Second Reading about which I want to be absolutely certain. One was whether the Bill would cover the armed forces operating under Operation Temperer. Secondly, my understanding is that PCOs are covered, but I seek clarity on that. It is important to get the definition right. It needs to be tight enough to make the Bill good and workable, but not so tight that some of those other valuable emergency workers are excluded.

The hon. Gentleman might remember that I also talked in the Chamber about refuse collectors. I will not press that today, but in future, if this Bill works, there might be some scope to look further.

[Wendy Morton]

Sorry, Ms Ryan.

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that was an admirably brief intervention, by my standards. The hon. Lady makes two very good points and one with which I disagree. The two on which I agree are that members of the armed forces effectively operating as emergency workers would be covered by the Bill, as would PCOs. I have no doubt about that.

My anxiety is that, if we extend the Bill to all public sector workers, such as refuse collectors, it would be difficult not to include housing officers and a wide range of others. I felt that the specific problem we have now relates to emergency workers and the dramatic rise in the number of incidents is significant. In addition, there is a moral imperative for us to stand by our emergency workers at such a moment. That is why I have resisted suggestions that we should spread further than what I consider to be emergency workers.

I will own up to the hon. Lady that there is one issue that I am not sure we have yet got right and that is in relation to St John Ambulance workers. Everybody thinks of a St John Ambulance worker as somebody who runs an ambulance service. On occasion they would be covered by the Bill, if it were enacted, because they would be commissioned by the NHS to provide ambulance services, or perhaps search services; however, in the mere provision of first aid services, they would not be covered. That could lead to an odd situation where an NHS ambulance was sitting immediately next to a St John ambulance at a football stadium and one set of people would be covered and the other would not. We may need to return to that. However, I do not want to open up to everybody who provides first aid services on a voluntary basis for every charity in the country because that would water down the provision in the Bill.

[Huw Merriman]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Wendy Morton]

I will be brief. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that getting the definition and the Bill right will send a strong message to those who are not covered by the definition in the Bill that some of the behaviour we have seen, particularly spitting and biting, is unacceptable?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. I know of housing officers who have to make very difficult decisions and they get a great deal of grief and often aggressive—sometimes physically aggressive—behaviour from potential clients in housing offices up and down the land. Of course, I do not condone any of that violence. I am glad to say that my local authority has very strong measures in place to ensure that all its staff are safe.

The Bill will not of itself end all the assaults and inappropriate behaviour. There is a duty of care on all employers, whether that is the police, the NHS, an ambulance trust or whatever, to ensure that their staff are safe. There are always measures they can put in place to ensure that. That is one of the reasons why the trade unions have played such an important role. Broadly speaking, nearly everyone we are talking about in this definition is unionised in some shape or form, although it is not quite the same with the police. The unions can play an active role in ensuring that staff are protected.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, who rose at the same time as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, still wants to come in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, clauses 4, 5 and 6 relate to spitting and the taking of intimate or non-intimate samples. The reason for the clauses is clear: the incidence of people spitting at emergency workers has risen dramatically. Spitting may seem relatively innocent to some people, but it is perfectly possible to pass on communicable diseases by spitting. Often, an individual who has been spat at will not know for some considerable time whether they have contracted a particular communicable disease and will therefore be put through precautionary medical interventions that they would not otherwise have had to go through. We have all heard stories of false positives for various diseases being given to police and other emergency workers following that process.

Spitting is not just a question of saliva. Sometimes—if someone has been in a fight and lost a couple of teeth, for instance, and there is blood in their mouth—people spit an amount of blood. However, I want to make absolutely clear from the beginning, in case there is any doubt, that I do not believe that that has anything to do with HIV. It is my understanding, from all the medical evidence I have looked at and the advice provided by NHS England, NHS Wales and the World Health Organisation, that spitting does not transmit HIV, including when there is blood in the saliva. There is no evidence that that is the case. There has been some wild talk that it is, but it is not. I remember that there was a similar debate when I was a priest in the Church of England and people were concerned about taking communion wine. In actual fact, the combination of saliva, silver and alcohol was a good way of killing off the HIV virus.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think he had an inkling that I may raise HIV. I accept his helpful explanation. Does he feel that there is a case for further guidelines to be provided with the Bill, particularly to help prevent unnecessary stigmatisation?

[Chris Bryant]

One of the delights of the past 20 years for me as a gay man, many of whose friends died in the early years of HIV, is that HIV is no longer seen as a death sentence. It is another medical condition. People have much more rational attitudes to it than they used to. That has been helped by significant senior figures, including in politics, such as Lord Smith—Chris Smith—being able to speak openly about their HIV status, and of course by dramatic changes in medication, which have transformed people’s life chances. There may be some downsides to that in terms of whether people practise safe sex and all the rest of it, but the truth is that there is considerably less stigma than there was. As I said on Second Reading, I would be distraught beyond belief if I thought that the Bill would add to that stigma.

I am open to suggestions about whether there should be specific provision in the Bill to require NHS England or the authorities in Wales to make clear what is appropriate in relation to specific communicable diseases. It may be that we want to return to that on Report, but as I say, I am keen that clauses 4, 5 and 6 remain in the Bill. Our emergency workers should not be spat at, whether it is only saliva, saliva with blood, or whatever—they should not be. It is designed to be an assault, it is designed to be offensive and it is designed to make people fearful about whether they have contracted a communicable disease.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Wendy Morton and Chris Bryant

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I agree with every word. Indeed, I am going to say it again myself later.

My Bill does three things. First, it introduces a new offence of common assault or battery against an emergency worker in the performance of their duties. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are similar offences on the statute book: common assault contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998; and assault on a police constable, a prison officer or an immigration officer in execution of his duty under section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996, section 8 of the Prison Act 1952, and section 22 of the UK Borders Act 2007. There will be a test afterwards.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am not Welsh, but the west midlands are not too far from the Welsh border. Home Office statistics show that in the west midlands alone there were just over 1,300 assaults recorded against police officers in 2016-17. I hope that the Bill gets its Second Reading and continues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this debate, as well as dealing with assaults on emergency workers, should, and really will, send out a strong message to other public sector workers in areas such refuse collection, who also face assault, that these attacks are absolutely not acceptable and will not be tolerated?

[Chris Bryant]

I would like to cut the number of assaults on anyone in society—that is the truth of the matter. The hon. Lady makes a good point about public sector workers.

Incidentally, I should make one comment before I continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Ms Lee) referred to HIV. It is true that people often fear HIV infection in these situations, but it is almost inconceivable that somebody would be infected with HIV by being spat at. I want to make that absolutely clear. I would be horrified if my Bill were somehow to be used to increase the stigma attached to such illnesses.

There is a problem with the existing offences. Common assault makes no distinction between a member of the public and an emergency worker, and the other offences apply only to police, prison and immigration officers, and not to all emergency workers. What is more, they are all summary offences triable only in the magistrates courts, with a maximum sentence of six months.

By contrast, the Bill’s new offence will apply to all emergency workers. It will be an “either way” offence, triable in either a magistrates court or a Crown court, with a maximum sentence of 12 months, or a fine, or both. In essence, it will double the maximum sentence available for assault or battery of an emergency worker. It will give the Crown Prosecution Service an extra string to its bow and it will match the provisions already in place in Scotland.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Debate between Wendy Morton and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the new hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). She helpfully reminded us that it is almost four months since the general election, but the point about the general election of which I want to remind the House is that on 8 June the people of this country—my constituents and everyone else’s constituents—had a vote, and the result was that the Conservative party got 56 more seats than the official Opposition. We have a working majority. The Queen’s Speech has already been approved, setting out—[Interruption.] Whether the Opposition like it or not, that sets out the legitimacy of this Government’s programme of work.

The Government also have a record of empowering Parliament, as we have heard throughout the debate, and that means Back Benchers, too. As we have heard, in 2010 it was the Conservative-led coalition Government who established the Backbench Business Committee, which is really important for Back Benchers on both sides of the House. When I sat on that Committee, I saw the range of topics proposed by Members of all parties for discussion. In the couple of years in which I have been a Back Bencher, we have had interesting and useful Back-Bench debates in the Chamber.

[Chris Bryant]

My only point there is that it is a bit of a pain if we cannot make the debates mean anything because the Government decide to abstain from any vote and not to follow through on a decision of the House. There is an important difference here. Although the Government did not fully implement this from the Wright proposals in 2010, despite promising to do so by 2013, we could have, as the Scottish Parliament has, a parliamentary bureau to decide all the business of this House. Would the hon. Lady support that?

[Wendy Morton]

I just go back to my point about Backbench Business Committee debates, because they have an important place in this Chamber and can make a difference, as can general debates. We had a very meaningful and useful debate yesterday evening on Gypsies and Travellers, a topic that Members on both sides of the House had been raising—