Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Sarah Jones

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. The other two items I want to discuss were underlined by the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about lining up with wokeism rather than with the hard-working people who find their lives disrupted in the workplace, when travelling to work or, indeed, in their communities. I commend the Government for the public order measures in part 3 and despair at amendments 1 to 7 tabled by several Lib Dem and Labour colleagues, which would completely remove that aspect of the Bill.

It is of course, a basic human right to be allowed to demonstrate one’s strongly held feelings. Indeed, I have been on demonstrations myself. I went on the countryside march, and I marched at the head of an opposition demonstration in Minsk, which had a slightly less jolly atmosphere. However, the Government must take action to prevent deliberate acts of vandalism or obstruction such as those associated with Extinction Rebellion and, I am sorry to say, Black Lives Matter. Yes, people have the right to demonstrate, but not in a way that prevents people from going about their lawful business: travelling to work, being taken to hospital by ambulance or, indeed, Members of Parliament being able to access this building to exercise our democratic mandate.

I am particularly pleased that we are taking action on single-personal protests. Over the spring bank holiday in May, local Labour councillor Theresa Norton sat in the middle of the street in the middle of Scarborough on the first weekend on which many of our hard-pressed tourism businesses were keen to make up some of the money they had lost during the pandemic. She caused a massive traffic jam, supposedly demonstrating in the cause of Extinction Rebellion. That sort of behaviour should not be allowed because it disrupts people’s lives and, I believe, actually antagonises people against such issues.

Finally, I am disappointed that the Labour and SNP Front-Bench teams are so out of touch with the genuine distress and disruption caused by illegal Traveller encampments. They seem to have some kind of rose-tinted view of traditional Romany lifestyles, but that is not the reality on the ground and the Government are right to take action. Communities have asked us to take action, and there is a clear choice to be made between supporting those communities or supporting people who lawlessly occupy land and cause havoc and destruction.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

This Bill contains some of the most controversial restrictions of our rights for many years. It is very long, and we have only a few hours to debate it, so I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that we should have had more time. During the pandemic, we have seen more than 400 regulations passed through statutory instruments with little or no scrutiny—necessary, but unprecedented. Now is the time to be reclaiming our rights, not restricting them further. This Bill will do little to tackle the real problems that British people face. It will not protect vulnerable children who are victims of criminal exploitation. It will not take dangerous weapons off our streets. It will not protect rape victims. It does nothing to tackle violence against women and girls.

Turning to part 1, we are pleased that, after almost three years of campaigning from the Police Federation, the Government have finally introduced the police covenant. I am reassured that the Government agreed with my amendment to include the whole policing family in the covenant, but why did the Government not accept amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to support mental health when we know that suicide levels are increasing and that one in five officers has PTSD. Why did they not accept our simple suggestions for some independence and scrutiny to be included in the process? As currently drafted, the covenant could be little more than warm words—a wasted opportunity to stand with our police officers after all they have done for us.

Clause 2 relates to assaults against emergency workers. My hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have campaigned for years to introduce a separate offence, with longer sentencing, for assaulting an emergency worker. Following years of increasing assaults against our most valued public servants, we are pleased that the Government have finally listened to the call, but why on earth will they not now commit to extending similar protections to the key workers who have done for so much for us, such as shop workers?

On Friday, I visited a Co-op in Croydon, where I heard about the violence and abuse that shop workers suffer and that, sadly, they feel has become part of the job. I met a man in his 70s in New Addington who runs a pet shop and was punched in the face by a customer. Of our 3 million retail workers, 300,000 were assaulted last year, yet only 6% of incidents led to prosecution. Abuse must not be part of the job.

The public agree with us: a survey published on Saturday shows that 89% back the new law. Industry agrees with us: the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the British Retail Consortium have been campaigning on the issue for years. Yesterday, leaders of 100 brands, including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, IKEA and Aldi, all published an open letter calling for greater protection for retail workers. MPs agree with us: the Select Committee on Home Affairs published a report last week, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) has corralled a very impressive number of Conservative MPs to support his new clause 90 on the same issue.

Tonight, the Government have a choice: do the right thing and back our retail and public service workers, or ignore the wishes of the public and give us another excuse. I hear the Minister saying that she is actively considering it, but she could commit to it tonight and give retail workers and our public servants the protections that they deserve.

Chapter 1 of part 2 introduces a duty to tackle and prevent serious violence. I have campaigned for years for the Government to tackle the growing epidemic of violent crime. Yesterday, I was at a vigil for a boy, just turned 16, who was brutally murdered in my constituency last week, in his own home, in front of his mother. Nothing is more important than keeping our children safe.

We have called for an evidence-based approach to tackling violence, and we support the intention of the serious violence duty to get every agency locally working together to tackle violence, but we have serious concerns on three fronts. First, there is no provision in the Bill to safeguard children and the Government have rejected calls for a new definition of child criminal exploitation. Secondly, we are very concerned about the data capture elements of chapter 1; the duty risks becoming an intelligence-gathering exercise with potentially ominous consequences. Thirdly, it must be made clear in the Bill that violence against women and girls counts as serious violence—it should not be an added extra. We want the serious violence duty to work, but we fear that, as currently drafted, it will not. I ask the Government to consider our amendments to protect children, to protect data and to protect women and girls.

Chapter 3 of part 2 relates to data extraction. We are asking the Government to protect victims, particularly victims of rape and sexual abuse, from painful and often necessary intrusion into their lives by the mining of their phone data. When we raised concerns in Committee, the Minister said:

“I…urge caution until the rape review is published, because there may be answers in that document.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 27 May 2021; c. 286.]

With respect to the Minister, the rape review has been published and its recommendations do not address the problems that we defined. One in five rape victims withdrew their complaints, at least in part because of disclosure and privacy concerns. The Secretary of State for Justice has apologised for failing rape victims, yet he is bringing forward legislation that would legitimise over-intrusion. The Government did not support our amendments in Committee to protect victims, but tonight they have a chance to think again.

Part 3 relates to public order. Over the past year, the police have had to enforce necessary but draconian covid regulations after little scrutiny and short notice. I have heard many times from the police that they have struggled to be the ones interpreting the law without the leadership from the Government that they needed. It is our job to define the law in a clear way so that the police are not the ones getting the blame for our lawmaking. That must be a firm lesson for us.

The public order powers in part 3 threaten the fundamental balance between the police and the people. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services called for a “modest reset” of the scales on public order legislation in its recent report. On any measure, a “modest reset” is not what this is. The new measures in the Bill target protesters for being too noisy and causing “serious unease” or “serious annoyance”. The vague terminology creates a very low threshold for police-imposed conditions and essentially rules out entirely—potentially—peaceful protest.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Lady agree that when she talks about “the people”, that would include the people whose lives are disrupted, who cannot get to work, who experience all the points that I made in my remarks? They are the people as well and they want to get on with their lives.

[Sarah Jones]

I wonder where that stops and at what point we accept the right balance between the right to protest peacefully and the right of people to go about their business. The inspectorate called for a moderate reset and that is not what this is.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Sarah Jones

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), with my support and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Stockton North. It would produce more accountability in the rental of high-performance vehicles or supercars. I understand that the issue of high-powered vehicles being driven recklessly in and around neighbourhoods, thereby plaguing towns and communities, is a challenge not only in parts of West Yorkshire, but across the country. Many attempts have been made to combat the issue at local level, involving local authorities working side by side with police forces, but such partnership initiatives can go only so far, and it has become clear to all involved that action at national level is needed.

More often than not in the examples of road traffic offences committed by people using cars described as high-performance vehicles, supercars or even prestige cars, the driver is not the owner, but has hired the vehicle. In recent years, there has been an increase in people hiring cars such as Lamborghinis and Ferraris and passing the keys to someone else, if not several others. The vehicles are then driven at dangerously high speeds, which puts other road users, pedestrians and the drivers themselves at risk.

Often the driver will not have the appropriate insurance. They will argue that they believed that they were somehow covered by the rental agreement, by their own insurance or simply by the fact that the person who hired the car had given them consent to take it around the block. They will say that they had not intended to crash, so they did not need insurance. In the majority of cases, they will not have experience of handling 300 hp-plus vehicles, which can be deadly in the wrong hands. Many companies that hire out vehicles operate responsibly and with transparency, but there are much darker elements in the industry. The sliding scale of criminality ranges from drivers engaging in antisocial use of the roads in communities to dangerous and reckless driving through to serious and organised crime.

What can we do to ensure that all companies that rent performance vehicles act responsibly and drivers are accountable for their actions behind the wheel? The new clause makes a start, and it follows a ten-minute rule Bill that was introduced on the Floor of the House on 24 February by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. She recalled a recent example in which a police officer had stopped two high-performance vehicles on the same 40 mph road, one going at 76 mph and the other at 86 mph.

The new clause would mandate all rental vehicles of 300 hp or above for use on public highways to be fitted with a black box. A black box is typically the size of a matchbox and it records information about how and when a car is driven. Many hire car companies act competently and do their very best to ensure that their vehicles do not fall into the hands of the irresponsible—that includes fitting black boxes—but a minority fail to carry out due diligence.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group, and I am a little concerned that many older vehicles that may be hired—for example, vintage Bentleys—cannot be fitted with a black box, which might prevent those vehicles from being enjoyed by people who perhaps want to hire a little of our history.

[Sarah Jones]

I confess that I am not a car expert, but my understanding is that the vehicles in question are 300 hp or more. I do not know whether the vehicles the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned are in that category. The new clause relates to powerful cars that are hired by people—often young people—who pass them on to their friends. In some cases, significant damage is caused.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. I understand the problem she has identified. However, the Jaguar F-Pace 3.0 litre 4x4, for example, which families might hire to pull a caravan on a holiday or to go on a trip, would fall into that category. I am a little worried that many people who are not part of the problem might be drawn into additional cost and the difficulties that that might present.

[Sarah Jones]

I imagine that if a vehicle could not accommodate a black box, it would not fall within the remit of the new clause. Perhaps we could work on the guidance accompanying the new clause to fix the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am grateful to him for doing so.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Sarah Jones

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

We support clauses 4 to 6, which relate to police driving standards. The Opposition have been calling for some years for proper legal protections for police officers when they pursue suspects on the roads. We know that the police put themselves in incredible danger to ensure that suspects are caught, and they should not be criminalised for doing that job. One of the first events I attended as an MP was an event organised by the Police Federation, and this issue was part of the first conversation that I had with it. I pay tribute to the Police Federation and others who have campaigned for this change.

Clauses 4 to 6 amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that qualified police drivers are compared to what is expected of a competent and careful trained police driver, rather than what is expected of competent and careful drivers, for the offences of dangerous and careless driving. It makes a lot of sense to give the police these added protections when they are driving for police purposes.

For those who may have concerns about these clauses, it is important to consider the context in which this change is being made. The Independent Office for Police Conduct publishes an annual report on deaths during or following police contact. In 2019-20, 24 people died in road traffic incidents involving the police: 19 were pursuit related; three were emergency response related; and the two remaining incidents were classed as other police traffic accidents. The number of road traffic fatalities involving the police in 2019-20 was the fifth lowest figure since records began in the early 2000s.

The Police Federation has been campaigning since 2012 for the skills of police officers to be considered in dangerous and careless driving cases. John Apter of the Police Federation, giving us evidence last week, said:

“All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 22, Q34.]

The Police Federation says that the

“current legislation leaves drivers vulnerable”,

and that subjecting drivers to conduct and criminal investigations as a result of being held to the same standards as a normal driver caused significant distress and impeded their careers. The Home Office’s review of the law, guidance and training governing police pursuit in September 2019 concluded that it is not appropriate to hold officers to the same standards as regular guidance, and set out to consult on possible changes.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that police forces have in place strict guidance on how police officers can use their driving skills? In particular, if a hot pursuit were to put members of the public at risk, they would have to desist from the pursuit.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is right; there are many other processes in place for when an accident occurs. As soon as an accident occurred, the IOPC would investigate why it happened. Measures are in place to ensure that the police do not do things that we would not expect of them. The amendment aims to make sure that it is very clear what is expected of them and what is not. When I spoke to the National Police Chiefs Council lead on those issues, it was clear to me that we have to enable the police to do what they need to do without fearing that they will be taken to court. There also need to be checks and balances to ensure that they do not overstep the mark.

The Government review was welcome. The IOPC concluded:

“Any change to legislation must not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermining the ability to hold the police to account effectively”.

That is very important. The change is welcome; it is not about the police driving without fear of scrutiny, but it is important that police are not prosecuted for doing what they have been trained to do.

It is also important to discuss an issue related to clause 4, which a number of police officers have raised with me. We tried to craft some amendments around this, but it was problematic, so I am just raising the issue. There was a concern that the number of officers who have undertaken the full level of driver training varies between forces, because there are various different levels of driving training, and what officers have will depend on where they are. Officers who do not receive the full training worry that they will be hesitant to do what may be required of them in the circumstances. For instance, if they were on a motorway and needed to ram a vehicle in order to save someone’s life on the road, would an officer take that risk if they could end up subject to a criminal investigation?

The police clearly have to strike a fine balance in the circumstances they are presented with. I have no doubt that, in the main, they will do what is expected of them. Subsection (3) states that

“the designated person is to be regarded as driving dangerously… only if)—

(a) the way the person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, and

(b) it would be obvious to such a competent and careful constable that driving in that way would be dangerous.”

Can the Minister provide some assurance? If a police officer who has done the basic level of police driver training finds themselves in a situation where they have to respond to an emergency incident that would require higher levels of training, how would they be protected?

On a matter related to clauses 4 to 6, the College of Policing has said that it would be “highly desirable” for police vehicles involved in pursuits always to be fitted with black boxes, which monitor the performance of drivers. Some forces, such as the Metropolitan police, fit all vehicles with those devices, but that is not the case everywhere. Could the Minister look into that? The cost might be prohibitive, but what would it take for all vehicles used in police pursuits to have those black boxes? What safeguards will be in place to protect drivers who have not had the highest level of driver training? Will that lead to more IOPC and court referrals, or can we be comfortable that the clauses as drafted will provide that protection?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

When the hon. Lady talks about poor-quality housing, would she say that some of the appalling housing in Croydon—for example, in the Regina Road block—is an example of the sort of housing that we should be trying to improve?

[Sarah Jones]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his political jibe. He is correct to say there are examples of bad housing in Croydon, as there are in other parts of the country. It has a massively serious effect on people’s lives. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Croydon South muttering about it from a sedentary position.

I will move on to the issue that we are talking about. When an urgent move is required because of gang violence, temporary accommodation is often the only realistic option. The law currently does not prioritise families in this situation, in contrast with the requirement for victims of domestic abuse to be treated as a priority for rehousing. Section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1996 gives victims automatic priority need, so that victims fleeing domestic abuse are moved urgently and thus protected. That is not the case when the threat of violence is external, which means that families are often forced to choose between giving up a secure tenancy and making a homeless application to their local authority, or keeping their secure tenancy and staying somewhere where they are in danger. The child safeguarding practice review published last year notes a case where a family moved back to an area where they were at risk in order to prevent the loss of their right to permanent housing. Within months, their son was killed.

The problems do not stop there. Evidence from practitioners shows how people at risk of violence who approach their local authorities are often not given adequate support due to their not being categorised as priority need under section 189(1) of the Housing Act. Youth workers who work with victims of gang violence often try to identify mental or physical health needs in the family in order to create a workaround. This shows that the system is not responding to the needs of victims of violence because of their status as victims. Support workers at New Horizon Youth Centre in London state that when young people are found in priority need, it is often as a result of any mental health conditions that they have managed to have diagnosed during the centre’s work with them following a serious incident of violence—it is not on the basis of being a victim or being at risk of such violence. In most cases, there is police evidence of risk, but the support workers have found that this is not enough to secure a positive priority need decision.

Kate Bond, the youth outreach project manager at New Horizon Youth Centre, explains: “We have seen so many cases where violence or the threat of violence is rejected as a reason for young people to be seen in priority need under the Housing Act. We have cases where even though there is clear evidence that someone’s life is at risk—not only because of their current injuries, hospital letters and police reports, but also proof from a range of other relevant services—they are not found in priority need. Too often, we end up having to pay for these young people in emergency accommodation and spend a long time gathering proof under other grounds for priority need, keeping the young person in limbo. Traumatised young people are further demotivated by this process and the sense that their lives being at risk is not enough to secure them somewhere safe to live. This continues to put lives and communities at unnecessary risk. However, even that threshold for proof required by local authorities before they will place young people in temporary accommodation can be difficult to reach. Often, for example, young people cannot go to their GP because it is in an area where they feel unsafe, so securing medical proof becomes more challenging and the diagnosis of mental health conditions more difficult.”

Under sections 177(1) and 177(1A) of the Housing Act, a person is legally homeless if violence or the threat of violence means that they cannot be reasonably expected to remain in their current accommodation, but the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities currently provides no guidance for local authorities on how to consider whether an applicant might be in priority need because their current home puts them at risk of gang violence, harassment or grooming. Currently, there is only general advice on the assessment of violence in paragraph 8.36, whereas the assessment of domestic abuse is dealt with in some detail by the statutory guidance. The guidance also says that a shortage of housing could be taken into account when considering whether a family should be moved.

Housing providers such as local authorities or housing associations may also hold critical information that can be used as evidence to support the homelessness application, safeguarding, or police investigations. They may be able to support young people and families to access alternative accommodation. Practitioners are reporting, however, that housing representatives are often not included in relevant case forums and discussions on families at risk of harm. Similarly, when people fleeing violence present at their local authority for rehousing, there is currently no duty on the local authority to seek information from the police to ascertain the level of risk when assessing the housing application.

As I said, amendments 50 to 62, and new clauses 28 and 29, were drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow in collaboration with the co-chairs of the Housing Law Practitioners Association and Garden Court Chambers, and with the backing of many organisations such as Centrepoint, New Horizons Youth Centre, Shelter, Crisis, Barnardo’s, the Big Issue Foundation, St Basils, Catch-22, Redthread, Homeless Link, Nacro, the Revolving Doors Agency, Fair Trials and the St Giles Trust.

New clause 28 would ensure that we learn from best practice of housing support services for victims of domestic violence, and that those who are at risk of violence owing to gang behaviour are prioritised for rehousing away from harm. For children and adults affected by and at risk of serious violence, seeking support to secure a safe place to live can be extremely difficult. Evidence from practitioners shows how young people, care leavers, people with multiple needs, and families facing threats of violence are not given adequate support when approaching their local authorities to seek help moving out of harmful situations because, despite meeting the threshold for vulnerability, given that they have fled violence or threats of violence, they are not seen as in priority need. In many cases, they do not receive the initial duties and assessment to which they are entitled under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. New clause 28 is designed to remove that hurdle and set outs clearly that anyone at risk of violence is in priority need, whether the violence takes place inside or outside the home.

New clause 29 would ensure that the current homelessness code of guidance is updated to take into account the specific needs of those fleeing gang violence and exploitation. Serious cases reviews have shown that the current guidance is not sufficient and young people are paying the price with their lives. Victims of serious violence are often forced to choose between remaining in an area where they are at risk or making a homeless application and giving up a secure tenancy. In the financial year 2019-20, more than 7,000 households were recognised as being at risk of or experiencing non-domestic violence and abuse and seeking homelessness support. It is right that the departmental guidance provides specific guidance for people in that situation.

Homelessness and housing precarity are significant contributing factors to children and adults becoming vulnerable to violence as they respond to offers of accommodation from those seeking to exploit them. Prevention of that trend and early intervention to reduce the harm they may face requires their housing needs to be met quickly and appropriately. The current homelessness code of guidance highlights certain vulnerabilities faced by groups such as young people, care leavers and victims of trafficking, who should be considered as part of the housing application, but there is little guidance around young people at risk of violence and exploitation. By enhancing the current code of guidance so that local authorities take into account the needs of people at risk from serious violence, the Government would ensure that the needs of that vulnerable group specifically are considered by local housing authorities to protect them from further risk of violence. Amendments 50 to 62 would ensure that registered social landlords are involved and consulted in local efforts to reduce serious violence, and that there is timely co-operation between the police and local housing authorities to prevent serious violence.

Part 2 of the Bill outlines the model for multi-agency working to prevent serious violence. The horrific cases in the serious case reviews tell us that there is no effective multi-agency response to preventing serious violence that does not include housing. These amendments will ensure that registered social landlords are included in the new duty and ensure that there is timely information sharing between the police and RSLs for the purpose of preventing serious violence. By supporting effective multi-agency working between all partners, the Government can ensure that housing is considered as an essential part of a comprehensive public health approach to tackling and preventing the serious use of violence.

As I have said, there is provision in law and in practice for people fleeing domestic violence to have a route out of that violent situation, through their local authority and the definition of priority needs. There is not the same route out for those at risk of gang violence in their area, and I have seen the consequences of that. These amendments would put those at risk of serious violence on the same footing as those at risk of domestic violence. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

As a former Children’s Minister, I know that there is no direct correlation between funding and outcomes. Indeed, some of the most cost-effective local authorities in terms of children’s services are those that do not use a lot of agency work, which is cheaper than some of the least effective, which tend to spend more in some cases.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I can provide the evidence that maps those areas that have made the largest cuts to youth work and the areas that have seen the largest increase in violence. There was not a direct causation, but there was a pattern and a trend. Although these things are not absolute, the evidence for every local authority shows that there was an impact. Youth work is known to be effective as an adult intervention with young people who perhaps do not have parental involvement in the way that we would want.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but often it is the local authorities that are failing, with a big backlog of work, that find they cannot recruit, and therefore have to rely on agency social workers and foster carers. That means they are spending a lot more money. Some of the better ones, such as North Yorkshire, have very few agency workers because they can keep it in house and delivery it cost-effectively.

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, that is a separate point that the right hon. Gentleman is right to make. Agency workers are not invested in the organisation they work for; they do not know the area; they are more expensive and often not as effective. My point is that the significant reduction in funding for local authorities will inevitably have an impact on their ability to implement this duty. I hope that the Minister and the Home Office will push forward the argument for more funding for local authorities.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Sarah Jones

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

Clause 2, as the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, has outlined, increases the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. We absolutely support that provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood highlighted, the Opposition have been calling for it for years. On Second Reading of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda introduced, he eloquently said:

“An assault on anyone is wrong, but an attack on any emergency worker—whether that is a police constable, a paramedic, an ambulance driver, an accident and emergency doctor or nurse, a fire officer, a prison officer, someone working in search and rescue, or someone working on a lifeboat—is an attack on us all. And when we are all attacked, we all stand firm together.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1103.]

Many Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, were present on Second Reading, and I remember well the huge support for that private Member’s Bill, with many Members wanting to speak.

During the covid pandemic, which has happened since that legislation was passed, there has been a shocking increase in the number of attacks on frontline emergency service workers, with a 31% increase compared with 2019. Over the last five years, attacks on frontline police officers have gone up by 50%. It has been clear through the pandemic that emergency services and shopworkers have been right at the forefront, risking their own health to serve their communities. Many have faced unacceptable attacks as they have worked to keep us safe, from being spat at and punched to being verbally abused and intimidated. Those attacks should be met with swift, meaningful punishment.

As I mentioned earlier, Sergeant Matt Ratana was murdered doing the job that he loved last year. All of us, I hope, would do everything that we can to honour his memory by campaigning to stop assaults on our police as best we can. The NHS figures are disturbing. Between January and July last year, there were more than 1,600 physical assaults on UK ambulance workers. In London, there were 355 physical assaults on ambulance workers and 239 incidents of verbal abuse. I experienced it myself when I rode out with some police officers, and we had to arrest people who were on drugs and being highly abusive. The ambulance workers arrived and were sexually assaulted by the two men. It is a daily occurrence, and we should not accept it.

The Government’s impact assessment states that over 11,250 cases of assault on an emergency worker were proceeded against in 2019, with around 9,050 resulting in a sentence. Of those, 1,900 cases received a fine, 3,600 a community sentence, 950 a suspended sentence and 1,550 an immediate custodial sentence. Of those receiving an immediate custodial sentence, most—67%—were sentenced to three months or less, 27% were given a sentence of three to six months, and only 6% received an immediate custodial sentence of six months or more.

We should pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda for all their work campaigning to achieve the change. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax originally drafted the “Protect the Protectors” Bill and campaigned relentlessly with the Police Federation for its introduction. The Bill was later picked up as a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, and received universal support to be passed into law.

As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda had originally pushed for a two-year maximum sentence in his Bill, but the Government had wanted 12 months, to which he agreed in order to ensure that the Bill passed. It is a shame that the Government did not agree to it at that time and it would be useful to understand what the change in view is down to. There are still concerns around the stronger sentence only applying to convictions in the Crown court, and some in the police have raised concerns that it should come alongside effective sentencing guidance: magistrates should be able to sentence for longer to avoid clogging up the Crown court. Sentencing guidance has not yet been published in relation to section 2 of the 2018 Act, and while the increased sentence is welcome in the Bill, it would be good to hear from the Minister about his plans for new sentencing guidance.

[Mr Goodwill]

Is it also the case that, because we introduced the ability to appeal against lenient sentences, if judges and magistrates do not use the powers in the Bill available to them, it is open to the Government or law officers to challenge those sentences?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It would be good to hear the Minister’s view on that in his response.

To finish my remarks on clause 2, which recognises the bravery of emergency workers and appreciates that there should be increased sentences for those who assault them, the Government could take many other actions that may also reduce the number of assaults against emergency workers. We should not lose sight of them. Being alone on a patrol increases the risk of assault, and that tends to be down to resources. The Government need to tackle that issue. We also have a woefully small amount of evidence as to why assaults are increasing. What is the evidence around what is happening, and why it is happening? What analysis has been done by the Home Office on where these assaults are taking place, and why?

Linked to that is the issue of protective equipment. There has been a big increase in body-worn cameras and spit guards in policing, but what lessons are actually being learned from covid, and from the experience suffered by our police officers and other emergency workers during this time, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect them in the future? In conclusion, clause 2 is a welcome step in the right direction.