Safety of Emergency Workers
Darren Paffey Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the safety of emergency workers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
Our emergency workers run towards danger when the rest of us would instinctively run away. When someone is injured, trapped at sea, frightened or in grave danger, our emergency workers do not ask first who the person is, where they come from or what their political views are; they simply act. They do it because it is their duty, and because they care. In the case of organisations such as the RNLI and the coastguard, they volunteer their own time to save complete strangers. The very least they should expect in return is to do their job without being assaulted, threatened or intimidated.
Because of the nature of their roles, however, emergency workers often do not have a voice. They are expected to get on with their job and absorb the abuse. I wanted to hold this debate to give them a voice and secure action to protect them. Sadly, recent events in and around Portsmouth have shown that that cannot be taken for granted. On 6 September, protesters gathered at Eastney pier in an attempt to prevent migrants rescued from a small boat being taken out of the area. Further protests followed in neighbouring Gosport on 22 September and 4 October. There have been convictions for violent offences connected to those protests, and other cases remain before the courts—I will not comment on those proceedings.
The cases that have concluded give the House a very disturbing indication of what emergency workers faced. On 22 September, Shannon Dodds concealed her identity with a mask and sunglasses before spraying a noxious substance into the face of two police constables. Sally Pearson punched an officer, causing a suspected ligament injury that has left him unable to work for three weeks, and she then directed racial abuse at another officer. Behind those assaults are real people—officers who went home injured, families worried about their loved ones and colleagues left to pick up the pieces.
It was not just the police. I have spoken to emergency services representatives who were on the frontline. Ambulance crews trying to reach people in need of medical assistance were abused. Protesters rocked their vehicles, banging on the sides, and pushed phones aggressively into the workers’ faces, filming them and sharing the images online. The coastguard vehicle had every tyre slashed, police vehicles were damaged, and emergency workers and volunteers were followed, filmed and intimidated. Their message to me was simple: “This is not what we signed up for.”
Videos from the Eastney disorder showed protesters shouting, “Effing traitors,” and, “I hope you effing lot sink,” at the RNLI boats. Those words were directed at people whose only purpose is to save lives. The intimidation extends beyond the protests: I have heard reports of RNLI crew members’ children being harassed, and volunteers and staff being advised not to wear service-branded clothing in public for fear of abuse. What does it say about us if lifeboat volunteers cannot safely wear the badge of an organisation dedicated to saving lives? What sort of patriotism attacks British officers, obstructs British paramedics, damages coastguard vehicles and intimidates RNLI volunteers? Wrapping yourself in a flag does not make your actions patriotic. Real public service is someone putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone they have never met.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She represents a coastal seat just along from mine in Portsmouth, so she knows the value of the RNLI and the lifeboats. Does she agree that those who have dressed up what they have done as some form of righteous activism are both misguided and utterly irresponsible? In addition to some of the events she described, some children of RNLI volunteers were bullied at school. Does she agree that that crosses a line, and will she join me in full support of our RNLI volunteers and their families, who have paid a price for this?
Amanda Martin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As a teacher, I say that bullying has no place in school, especially from people pretending to be patriotic who are just doing harm to the people helping us in our society.
I will be absolutely clear about the right to protest. I respect that right—I have been on many demonstrations. It is fundamental to our democracy, and I will always defend it. Many people who attended these demonstrations were local residents with genuine concerns about immigration, the asylum system and the impact on our communities. Some of them felt very intimidated by the turnout of protesters in balaclavas. Their concerns deserve to be heard, not dismissed. People should not be made to feel that expressing concerns about immigration makes them extremist or less entitled to have a voice. I understand the anger many constituents feel about illegal immigration, and I share their determination to stop dangerous small boat crossings.
People are entitled to demand secure borders, an effective asylum system and firm action against the criminal gangs that profit from putting lives at risk. They are also entitled to be frustrated by years of political rhetoric and promises from Governments who have had the opportunity to act but have not. There has been progress under this Government, but the job is not finished.
But there is an unmistakable line between peaceful protest and criminal disorder. Assaulting officers, obstructing ambulances, damaging emergency vehicles and intimidating rescue volunteers is not protest; it is criminal behaviour. We must also recognise that alongside concerned residents, there was an organised far-right element to these demonstrations. Hon. Members will be familiar with so-called Danny Tommo and the Patriot Platform. Through his network, far-right activists were mobilised from across the country to come to Portsmouth, often with their faces covered, to exploit local concerns, stir up division and contribute to disorder and hate.
Such people are creating a protest tourism industry, bringing chaos to communities and seeking to profit from public anger. We should never allow those who exploit legitimate public anxieties to claim that they speak for everyone who attends a peaceful demonstration. My first question to the Minister is: what is being doing to improve intelligence sharing between police forces when organised agitators travel between areas, and what more can be done to hold organisers and online instigators accountable?
Sadly, Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. The RNLI told me that it saw 140 reports of abuse and aggression across the country in September alone. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives recorded over 22,000 incidents of violent abuse between 2024 and 2025—the equivalent of 62 incidents every day. A survey by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine found that 96% of emergency department staff had experienced violence or aggression from a patient or member of the public. Before these protests, I was already hearing from hospital staff in my city that they were facing racial abuse at work. These flashpoints are part of the wider problem of how we treat the people who provide essential public services.
We must consider how these attacks can be prevented. One issue that is raised repeatedly in Portsmouth is the use of face coverings by people intent on causing disorder. There are legitimate religious and medical reasons for wearing face coverings, and those rights must be respected, but there is a clear distinction between those reasons and deliberately concealing one’s identity to commit offences and evade identification. At a subsequent protest in Portsmouth, which the Minister is aware of, police used powers to require the removal of these face coverings. Arrests were reduced dramatically and residents were able to express their views peacefully. Can the Minister explain how the Government are supporting local forces to use existing powers, and whether those powers need strengthening, particularly where police have not received prior notice of a protest?
I also want to address online intimidation, misinformation and disinformation. Local workers and volunteers have been doxed, with photographs of their personal information, including home addresses, shared online. Far-right accounts have labelled them traitors and encouraged hostility towards them. People have received death threats and letters sent to their homes. One worker said that by the time he had left the protest after his 25-hour shift and gone home, he saw his address all over X. He was very distraught about that and what it would do to his family. I have also heard of one worker who has not been home since June because they were misidentified online. People who have done nothing more than their jobs are being left frightened about being in their own homes.
The Hampshire Police Federation told me that officers understand the physical risks involved in policing protests, but after a 24-hour shift or a cancelled day of leave, it is going home and finding their face online that hits them hardest. Emergency workers are increasingly scared to use personal social media accounts to share pictures of their children with family, because they fear that agitators will infiltrate their accounts. New technologies are making this behaviour easier. The RNLI has had agitators entering its stations wearing Meta glasses and uploading footage online to cause further intimidation.
A consistent problem is how difficult it is to get personal information and videos taken down from social media. Social media companies do not have good enough procedures to deal with this—we must press them to do better, and quickly. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about tackling doxxing. Although I recognise that digital policy sits with other Departments, will the Minister explain the work taking place across Government to protect emergency workers from online intimidation, and to ensure that harmful personal information is removed quickly?
Alongside direct threats, we must challenge deliberate misinformation about the role of our emergency services. When those organisations put out factual statements explaining their work, they are often accused of lying, with hostility towards their staff and volunteers amplified as a result. The RNLI has a legal, moral obligation under international maritime law to assist those in distress at sea. Its crews are not political activists but specialist rescue workers, many of whom volunteer their time. There is a particularly important example from Eastleigh. While rescuing people from a small boat, RNLI crews also helped to ensure the safety of protesters who had gone into the water—the very people protesting at the RNLI’s involvement were saved by its crews.
I am also concerned that elected politicians have helped to amplify misinformation and hostility towards our emergency services. Councillors both locally and nationally amplified information by livestreaming and sharing videos, and by ignoring hostile comments on their social media posts, while emergency services were carrying out their duties. Elected officials and politicians carry responsibilities that should never be used to legitimise intimidation or encourage hatred.
Will the Minister raise with colleagues the need for a stronger standards regime for councillors, including how they can be held accountable when they use their position to encourage abuse or spread dangerous misinformation? What more can the Government do, working with social media platforms and trusted local voices, to challenge false claims before they translate into real-world intimidation or violence?
I was delighted that Portsmouth city council yesterday agreed to grant the RNLI the freedom of the city, following the protests. It was disappointing to note, however, that every Reform councillor abstained. This debate is ultimately about the kind of country we want to be. We can disagree passionately about immigration—we can protest and challenge the Government and we can demand change, and we should defend the rights of people to do so peacefully, even when we profoundly disagree with what they say—but none of that justifies the assault or intimidation of the people who keep us safe, nor should legitimate public concerns ever be exploited as an excuse to spread hatred.
The emergency workers we see being abused today may be the very people our families depend on tomorrow. Their duty is to help whoever is in danger; our duty is to make sure that they do it safely. Those workers do not ask whether somebody deserves to be saved, where they are from, their political background or what they have done. They simply answer the call.
We must defend the right of people to protest, but we must also defend the right of those who serve our communities to do so safely. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will protect emergency workers from violence, strengthen the response to organised disorder, tackle doxing and misinformation, support those suffering trauma, and ensure that anyone who attacks or intimidates an emergency worker faces swift and serious consequences. Our emergency workers stand up for all of us, regardless of who we are and what we believe. It is time we did the same for them.
Murder of Henry Nowak
Darren Paffey Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
Let me thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, and the tone in which he has reflected on this horrific murder and the words of the family, which he knows that I share.
I would normally let the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point slide, but there is far too much misinformation floating around on social media for me to just leave it unchallenged. On the point about the Government coming to the House, he will know that the proceedings and sentencing concluded at 4 o’clock yesterday. We said that we would come to the House immediately thereafter, and we have presented ourselves here today. We have responded in an appropriate way, and had all the facts and all the judge’s remarks at our disposal for our review before coming to this House. It is important that we respond in these moments in a measured way, and that is what the Government have sought to do.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to evidence in the Valdo Calocane inquiry. He will know that the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks is well under way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to pre-empt any findings that the inquiry might make, but all the actions taken, and assumptions made, by professionals from the public services, including the police and the health service, are subject to scrutiny in that inquiry. I am sure that we will return to those matters when the inquiry reports.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account. I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police. Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law.
This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it. My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Henry was a popular and much-loved student at the University of Southampton, and his murder has horrified our city. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) commend everyone at the university for their response and their support for the university community following this tragedy. Like many, I have watched the bodycam footage, and it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. It makes it plain for all to see how Henry posed no threat that would warrant being handcuffed, yet he was treated as a criminal based on the lies of his murderer. No one in their right mind thinks that one Sikh represents all Sikhs or that one or two police officers represent the entire police force; as Henry’s father has said, this is about murder, our response to it and our prevention of it. As such, I have two questions for my right hon. Friend.
We have a knife problem in this country. That is why we have taken early steps to ban zombie knives and crack down on knife sellers, but it is obvious that that is not enough and we have to go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to clarifying a set of tough and consistent knife laws with the resources to enforce them, so that we can actually move on? Secondly, I echo the words of Henry’s dad, as the Secretary of State did, and ask her to guarantee that the IOPC will have
“the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”
Will she guarantee that? The catastrophic errors that were made when police officers got to Henry must never happen again.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.
My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.
Oral Answers to Questions
Darren Paffey Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to support Greater Manchester police and police forces across the country. It is right that they should be able to deal with issues and challenges, including public order. We are strengthening the system in that area as a result of weaknesses in the national co-ordination that we have inherited. I can tell the hon. Lady that Greater Manchester police will be getting 176 additional police officers for their neighbourhood teams over the course of this year.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Off-road bikes careering through estates and communities are dangerous and an antisocial nightmare. We are giving the police stronger powers to seize bikes without the need for repeated warnings, in order to help keep our streets safe.
Darren Paffey
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. My constituents around Weston Shore have had enough of exactly the kind of thing she describes. Antisocial motorbikes are racing outside their homes every night. The constant noise disturbs everyone’s sleep, yet they have seen no meaningful enforcement in recent years. The Secretary of State has outlined that further powers are coming. Will she confirm that she expects local police forces to use these powers fully to tackle this issue seriously, so that this blight on my constituents’ lives can be stopped?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The issue he raises will resonate with people across the country; whether it is Southampton or south Tyneside, too many areas are facing the blight of off-road bikes and street racing. At the moment, the police have to give people multiple warnings. It can be two strikes or three strikes and the bikes are still on the streets. That is not good enough. We want to make it much easier for the police, so that it is one strike and out.