To state the obvious, I am delighted that the Bill has reached this stage, because if it completes Third Reading, it will have time to clear all its stages in the House of Lords and will, I hope, be enacted. The fact that it has reached Third Reading is due to support not only from its sponsors, but from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) drew my attention to the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, on which I based my original Bill. My Bill has all-party sponsors; moreover, at every stage we have had all-party support, including from Opposition spokesmen, and I am grateful for that.

I should like to cite two individuals in particular. I suffer from the great disadvantage in the House of Commons of not being a lawyer, so it was invaluable to receive the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is not always associated with a benevolent approach towards private Members’ Bills, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), both of whom gave legal advice and support when I was in negotiations. As those who followed the progress of the Bill from the start will know, the provisions in the Scottish Bill were much wider, and there were negotiations with the Home Office and others to try to ensure that a similarly wide-ranging Bill was introduced in the House.

My right hon. Friend mentions our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore); hon. Members might think it unusual that he is not in his place on a Friday, especially as he is a sponsor of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend says. I think that my hon. Friend would want it to be known that he is attending a funeral, which keeps him from his business in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon explained that to me personally, too.

After negotiations with the Home Office, the Bill became not only shorter but clearer. My only regret, if I may make a personal comment, is that the great scourge of private Members’ Bills, as I described him in Committee, Eric Forth, is not here today. I do not think that my Bill was a unique case, but Eric actually suggested that he supported its intentions. I pointed out to him in a slightly mischievous way that his only objection was exactly the one espoused by the Home Office. I felt that that combined opposition was too much for me to take on, and so we are considering a truncated Bill. The Bill has been welcomed by the emergency services. Strangely enough, it has been welcomed in Northern Ireland, too, which has asked for the Bill to apply there, because it has no such provisions on ambulance workers.

The Bill addresses the offence of impeding emergency workers. It is based on two straightforward, simple principles. First, people who risk their lives to save others should not be obstructed, and should be free to undertake their rescue work without obstruction and attack by yobs and idiots. Secondly, people who need to be rescued in an emergency because they are in danger should not face additional danger because of the mindless activity of a minority of idiots. Rescue work is essentially a team operation, and it is important that the team operate together. If part of the team is dislocated, the team does not work as effectively, so victims could be at greater danger. Sadly, that has become more important now, because of the threat of terrorist attacks.

On Second Reading, I mentioned the unbelievable conduct of some people, and I will reiterate a few examples. Greater Manchester fire and rescue service helped to lead a campaign on the subject, with the prompting and help of the Manchester Evening News. The fire and rescue service reports as many as 200 incidents a year of impeding and assault. Barry Dixon, who gave me considerable briefings on the Bill, told me of incidents from across the country of pipes being cut to stop the water supply. That is the least of the imaginative devices that some thugs use. Stoning is not unknown, and scaffold poles have even been driven through the windscreens of fire tenders. Fires have been lit deliberately as an ambush to lure the fire services to places where the thugs are waiting for them. Once inside, firemen find such refined tactics as razorblades fixed underneath banisters, so that as they try to haul their equipment upstairs their hands are severely injured.

There was an instance of live electric wiring being fixed to the inside of a door, so that the firemen trying to reach the source of the fire were in danger of electrocution. In the most grotesque case, in a multi-floor building, a hole in the floor was covered with a mat, like a bear trap, so that firemen coming in were in danger of plummeting to the floor below. That is the sort of dangerous nonsense that our rescue services have to endure.

The Bill’s provisions are wide-ranging. Clause 1 covers firefighters, rescue services, ambulance workers, including air ambulance workers, and voluntary organisations. I stress the latter, because some people were afraid that voluntary organisations were omitted. As Opposition Front Benchers proposed in Committee, clause 2 covers individuals who come to the help of the emergency services. The Bill covers the coastguard, lifeboat crews, and people transporting blood, organs and medical and rescue equipment to the site of an emergency. That is a list of provisions in the Bill, but the trouble with lists is that they are not always accurate and do not always fully reflect need. For that reason, we have built in a safeguard clause, which means that the list is not conclusive. That safeguard clause—clause 5—allows Ministers by order to add or remove categories of workers that they think need to be added. That builds in flexibility, so that we can act if the idiots find new targets.

Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on other groups of workers who, although not usually considered emergency service providers, none the less fall into that category in some situations? Examples include approved social workers when they are sectioning people, and child protection officers when they have to remove children from danger. Can my right hon. Friend clarify the scope of the provision?

As I said, the Bill was truncated in negotiations. We have built in the option under the order-making powers so that any organisation or group of workers who feel they should be covered by the Bill may make representations to the Home Office, and it would be a relatively simple matter for the Home Office to add any group to the list. We have kept options open. I do not pretend that the list is comprehensive.

On similar lines, one important service that has not been covered, unless I have missed something, is the air rescue service, which is extremely important in Snowdonia, as my right hon. Friend knows, where climbers and others get lost on the mountains.

I should have thought that that service was covered, especially as it operates within the country, rather than at sea. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that with the help of his memory box, which Ministers have and the rest of us are denied.

Most of us know that excellent services are provided by volunteers. Mountain rescue crews are often volunteers. I was recently at an open day event in my constituency where St. John Ambulance volunteers were in attendance. They often help at such events, as well as at football matches and on many other occasions. Will non-professionals carrying out such health-providing services be covered? We know that St. John Ambulance in particular provides a vast amount of those services.

At this stage, it is not possible to amend the Bill, but I am sure the Minister is listening to representations and would be glad to receive back-up representations from the organisations and groups involved.

The penalty was in dispute on Second Reading. In my original Bill, which was based on the Scottish Act, the maximum penalty was a fine of £5,000. At that stage the Home Office was minded to reduce that to £1,000, which I was not exactly happy about. Fortunately, as a result of discussions and negotiations within and outside Government, the £5,000 penalty has been restored, which was welcomed by the fire service.

The other aspect addressed in Committee was defences. The Scottish Act, on which I originally based my Bill, listed defences. It was pointed out, correctly, as I said in connection with my safeguard clause, that lists are not comprehensive. The Home Office offered the suggestion, which I accepted, that instead we should resort to the concept of reasonableness. That is a fairly standard process in law. A person would be guilty of impeding if he impeded without reasonable excuse. For example, a reasonable excuse would be that he did not realise that someone was an emergency worker. This change from the specific list to what I call the catch-all phrase was unanimously endorsed in Committee.

The Bill is relatively simple and straightforward. I hope there are now few areas where there is grave disagreement. The Bill that has evolved is better and clearer than the one that I originally proposed to the House, and I commend it to the House.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on the progress that he has made in steering his Bill to Third Reading. I agree with most of the sentiments that he expressed. The Bill will unquestionably make life easier and allow prosecutions for hindrance of services.

In reply to two of the points that were raised, the air ambulance service is specifically covered under the Bill where it is operating at the request of the national health service. Where it is not operating in such circumstances, the position is unclear. Perhaps the Minister needs to address that. According to my reading of the Bill, mountain rescue services are not mentioned and therefore would not be covered by the Bill. Again, that is an omission that the Minister may wish to reflect on, in view of the powers that he is granted.

In his usual self-effacing way, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said the Bill is far better than it was when he started. In some ways, it is. All Bills improve through the Committee stage. Sadly, as we discussed in Committee, some important elements and opportunities have been missed by the Government and the Home Office, particularly the opportunity to put an assault on an emergency worker on the same level of seriousness as an assault on the police. That would have been in the original Bill and is in the legislation in Scotland. A Liberal Democrat amendment to the Scottish Bill which specifically included social workers engaged in child work or sectioning was accepted by the Labour party in Scotland. That was all removed from this Bill by the Government because they thought it was not compatible with English legislation. It was an argument that I understood but did not necessarily agree with.

We wish the Bill further progress and look forward to its being enacted and becoming law. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman once again on pushing it forward.

I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). He was kind enough to ask me to be a sponsor of the Bill, but with his experience of the procedures of the House, it was not the most onerous task to support his Bill as he is so capable of steering it through all its stages. It is no surprise that it has reached Third Reading this morning.

When my right hon. Friend moved Third Reading, he mentioned Eric Forth, my former constituency neighbour in Bromley, and the fact that he was fortunate enough to have Eric Forth’s support for the intent of his Bill. I pay tribute to Eric Forth as a formidable opponent and a regular at our sittings on a Friday morning. My two Bills on environmental measures, which I fought for several years to get through the House, always fell on what became known as Eric Forth’s killing fields for private Members’ Bills. I had to sit silently as he eloquently talked them into oblivion. I am pleased to say that elements of one of my Bills have been resurrected in the legislation on home information packs, but sadly not with my name on them. None the less, Eric Forth was a formidable person who will be missed at our Friday morning debates.

It is surprising that we need to address the issue that is covered by the Bill. We have had emergency workers for many years and the problem is not new, but the Bill will be welcomed by those workers.

I understand that accident and emergency workers have been excluded from the Bill. It is arguable that in their daily work they frequently need immediately to respond to the needs of people who have been brought in for care and attention, and obstructing accident and emergency workers can have catastrophic consequences for people who need their attention. I accept that accident and emergency workers work in buildings and that they are often supported by security guards, but they face a great deal of aggression for no apparent reason. I have witnessed such behaviour when I have accompanied people to accident and emergency. The obstruction of such workers should be dealt with more severely, and the situation would be simplified if the Bill applied to them, too.

The Government’s respect agenda, although not directly addressed by the Bill, is part of what the Bill seeks to achieve because it is better to prevent emergency workers from being obstructed or attacked while carrying out their duties in the first place. I commend the work of the Metropolitan police, the fire service and others to explain to young people the dangers posed by things that they do sometimes for a lark and the consequences for other people if they impede emergency workers. That approach includes explaining to young people the importance of the work done by emergency workers and the dangers to which emergency workers expose themselves in addition to the problem of their possibly being attacked. That helps young people to address antisocial behaviour in the wider community and gets them to understand the consequences of their actions for not only emergency workers, but people who need emergency services.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although the Bill is welcome and positive in many respects, other aspects of Government legislation are making a huge difference to, for example, the number of assaults experienced by NHS staff? The number of assaults against nurses has drastically reduced in recent years because of other aspects of Government business.

I am grateful for that intervention, but I will not pursue it, because I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker thinks that that would stray too far from the Bill. Nevertheless, we need to address the antisocial behaviour that has made this Bill necessary. The Government are addressing that point through the respect agenda, which has my full support. I commend the work that has been done, but I believe that we need to invest more money to minimise the number of times that the Bill is used to protect emergency workers.

I agree with my hon. Friend that education is important in preventing the obstruction of emergency workers. Does he agree that it is still important for Parliament to pass this law, which sends a message to young people that the matter is so serious that there is a specific offence of obstructing emergency workers?

Yes; the Bill is necessary. As I have said, it is surprising that the gap in the law still exists and that we still need to simplify the law regarding firefighters. Although existing measures can be used against those who obstruct firefighters, the Bill simplifies the procedure and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has said, covers other emergency workers, such as ambulance workers—I am surprised that they have not included before—and coastguards.

The Bill is necessary, and the emergency workers and public sector workers whom it covers will welcome it. As has been said in this House on numerous occasions, emergency workers risk their well-being when they attend emergencies and protect the public. They do an enormous amount of good work in our local communities, and they deserve the cover of the Bill if they are impeded in doing so. Once again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on successfully piloting the Bill through the House.

I spoke in the debate in March, and I am delighted by the Bill’s progress. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on his work on this important Bill.

I support the Bill, because unfortunately Greater Manchester has one of the worst records for assaults and attacks on firefighters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has already referred to the fact that about 200 assaults a year are recorded on our fire services, which is a record that we want to lose. Although hon. Members would be concerned by an assault on any emergency worker, we know that the greatest number of assaults are directed at the police, firefighters and prison officers.

I want to praise the role played by the Manchester Evening News and its reporter, Neal Keeling, in highlighting the scale of the problem faced by firefighters in Greater Manchester. That newspaper has run an effective campaign to highlight the issue as the Bill has progressed through Parliament, although it is sad to say that there is still a need for such reporting in my area.

Today, we have had good news about the success of the recent knife amnesty run by the Home Office, because it is necessary in the fight against crime to reduce the number of knives on the streets. In a recent disturbing case, a teenager from my constituency was convicted of using a knife against a firefighter, who was trying to tackle a blaze, which shows the context in which our emergency workers are trying to do their jobs. The incident began with a scenario mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, in which a group of youths were shouting abuse at a fire crew and taking items from the fire engine. As an officer went to help his colleagues deal with the yobs, he was confronted by a youth on a bike. The court was told that the youth said, “Shall I hold him down while you cut him up?” The youth then said to the firefighter, “You’ve got an axe, but I’ve got one of these”, at which point he brandished a bladed weapon. We can all imagine how shocked the firefighter was to be confronted by a youth who was brandishing a bladed weapon. He told the police who assisted with the incident that he joined the service to protect the public, not to be threatened by them.

That incident occurred very recently and the prosecution was only a couple of weeks ago.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware, as a parliamentary neighbour of mine, of the excellent work that the emergency services—all of them—undertake in Bolton through a programme called “Crucial Crew”? Emergency set-ups are staged in a large building. All the emergency services are in attendance. Primary school children go through each of the scenarios. The aim is to try to impress upon them how important it is to observe decency when emergency workers are attending various incidents. Perhaps in that way we can inhibit some young people from becoming hooligans in future and thereby cure the problem that the Bill is intended to target.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that he is absolutely right. I was a councillor for a number of years and was aware of such initiatives, which do a great deal of good.

I am here to support the Bill because the incident to which I have referred was much more serious than verbally abusing fire crews or throwing things at them. I find it shameful that one of my constituents did what I have described to a firefighter. I feel badly about that for the fire crew. There is a case for saying that we must start with people when they are at a very young age. The young man I mentioned was convicted and, rightly, received a 12-month sentence for an appalling incident. He was 17 and a half years old. It is serious when someone gets to that age and, unbelievably, thinks that it is acceptable or a jape to brandish a weapon at a firefighter who was doing his job and trying to protect the local community.

The chief fire officer for Greater Manchester and Councillor Fred Walker, who is the chair of the Greater Manchester fire authority, are concerned. They have told me that they want Members to hear about the incident to which I have referred so that we can understand the threat that fire crews face daily. It must be shocking and difficult for someone to return to work the next day, or even the same week, when they have been the victim of such a severe incident. We need the Bill because of that threat.

The hon. Lady rightly draws attention to a horrific incident. I have every sympathy with the firefighters in her constituency. She must be aware that the Government have deleted the specific provisions that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) wants to cover assault and to ensure that it is an aggravated offence.

Indeed. We are trying in this debate to highlight various issues. A plethora of things can be done and are being done to deal with these issues. As I said, the young person who committed the offence that I have described is already in prison. He received a sentence of 12 months, and rightly so.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, incidents can involve youths as young as eight or nine years of age. Perhaps that is where our attention should be focused. We must start to explain to young people the seriousness of the job that emergency workers undertake. We must get them to understand how vital that work is and that it should not be impeded in any way. Barry Dixon, the chief fire officer, feels that it is important that magistrates use the powers that they already have to deal with such wrongdoing so that young people do not carry on with abuse and assaults on fire crews.

As I said on Second Reading, community penalties might be appropriate for the incidents that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) talked about the respect agenda and the great work that is being done by the police and fire officers to engage with young people. That is an important example of what can be done.

The Prince’s Trust and the fire service run joint schemes in my area. The young firefighters scheme is probably similar to the “Crucial Crew” programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned. I know that firefighters attend a great variety of community events to talk about fire hazards and to show off their equipment, which helps to develop relationships with young people in the community. More than anything, given all the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has been doing, we need to have the Bill on the statute book so as to add to the respect agenda, the good community work that is being done and the penalties that are available. We need to keep on highlighting the message to magistrates that they should be as firm as they can be, and use all the powers at their disposal, to stop young people developing the tendency to abuse and then later, possibly, to assault firefighters.

The situation is still as serious as it ever was. The Bill is as necessary as it ever was. I further congratulate the people whom I have mentioned, who alongside my right hon. Friend have been highlighting the matters that we are discussing. I have already referred to the Manchester Evening News and the report by Neal Keeling. Barry Dixon has undertaken a great deal of work and should be commended for so doing, as has Councillor Fred Walker. I know that that team of people will be delighted to see the Bill enacted. Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on introducing it.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on his Bill, which is both timely and much needed. Its purpose is to deal with a genuine and urgent problem.

During previous deliberations, we heard statistics relating to offences against emergency workers, including actual assaults. The situation is improving in some sectors, such as the NHS, since the introduction of programmes such as conflict resolution training and the determination of the NHS to protect its staff by prosecuting offenders. There were about 37,000 assaults in 2003 and the numbers went down to about 11,000 in 2004-05. Those figures relate to acute hospitals. New orders, such as acceptable behaviour orders, are assisting generally, but there is still a job to be done to prevent incidents. That is where the Bill will do its job. We must get in earlier, as it were. The news that the Government are supporting the new offence of obstructing an emergency worker in responding to an emergency will help to plug the gap and further diminish the number of incidents involving emergency workers. It will give them the same respect and protection in law as that which is accorded to our police force.

I was speaking to my local ambulance personnel recently. They were keen that I and my hon. Friends should support the Bill. That is why I am here instead of opening fêtes and fairs, the number of which seems to be growing exponentially in my constituency. It is important that I make sure that the Bill goes forward so as to assist ambulance personnel and others in their work. I am proud to be in the Chamber to support the Bill.

The obstruction of emergency workers responding to emergencies is a heinous crime that at best is irritating and troublesome and at worst potentially life threatening. The consequent danger and damage to the person awaiting emergency assistance can be devastating. I am pleased that the Bill defines emergency workers as firefighters and those transporting blood, organs and medical equipment, as well as coastguards and lifeboat crews. It is especially welcome that it covers all ambulance workers, including those working in air ambulances, volunteers and those working under contract to the health service.

I am especially concerned about the safety of those in our ambulance service and paramedics, whom I consider the unsung infantry of the NHS. I am therefore particularly pleased that the protection contained in the Bill is extended to them in clause 1(2)(c). They work in extremely stressful and sometimes dangerous circumstances. They are on the scene of an accident from the start and they use their skills to save lives. We should also have pride in them and they deserve not only our gratitude and respect, but our protection. They should be protected from harm and from obstruction in going about their duties, and they should have support in law.

My hon. Friend is being characteristically modest in that she is not revealing what a number of us know: she has spent a great deal of time working with emergency crews out on their shifts. Having spent hours overnight with them in her own time at weekends and during summer breaks, she knows about these matters at first hand. I commend her for doing that, and I hope to take it up.

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I had hoped to get on to that point, although I was not going to be quite as obvious. Part of what I intended to do as an MP was to get out and about, particularly with public service workers. I am a former teacher, but teaching was probably not as dangerous—at least it did not feel as dangerous—as some of the situations I have been in since I started going out on duty with police crews and the ambulance service. I believe that doing that should be part of my role as an MP.

I recently worked a night shift with an ambulance crew from Stourbridge station, which is an experience that I recommend to all parliamentary colleagues. Experiencing situations is very different from reading about them, or even from hearing first-hand stories. That experience has served to deepen my respect for the ambulance service and its personnel. I hope that it might also have deepened their respect for Members of Parliament, but we shall have to wait and see about that. [Interruption.] I hope that it might at least have deepened that crew’s respect for their own MP.

That night shift began at 9 pm and finished at 6 am. I do not think that anybody expected me to work the whole shift, so I think I got brownie points for doing so. Apart from one rest break at about 3 am, the crew work solidly for the duration, going from call to call and either tending to patients on site or, in some cases, taking them to hospital. At all times during that shift, they were constantly on guard, constantly concentrating and working together with almost unseen communication between them. The whole process was very uplifting.

We attended a variety of cases, including a cut head at the local swimming baths, a road traffic accident, alcohol-related incidents, a suspected heart attack, a young woman with severe abdominal pains, a distressed and disturbed patient in need of assistance, and the rescue—I do call it a rescue—and treatment of two young men who were the victims of a group attack. That attack underlined to me how helpful a Bill such as this could be.

We were returning to hospital with a patient from one of the other incidents that I have mentioned, when the paramedic who was driving noticed a man by the roadside whom he believed to be receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation—CPR. He called in the incident immediately, which is the right procedure, but he also took an immediate decision to divert our ambulance to it to assist. Upon parking it became clear that the incident was quite different from how it had first appeared. The young man on the floor was in fact being attacked, and his friend, whom my colleague—if I can use that description—from the crew had initially thought was giving CPR, was actually protecting him from further blows.

Both paramedics attempted to calm the situation and to assist both young men under attack. They managed to negotiate successfully, through a highly charged situation, and the young men were then attended to, and the badly injured patient on the floor was carried into the ambulance. However, while that was happening, two bystanders who had not previously been involved in the incident, attempted to prevent it by barring the way to the injured party and then hitting out at one of the paramedics as the injured man was lifted into the ambulance. Local police arrived within two minutes of the call to them having been made, and the situation calmed. But in those two minutes, when lives could have been lost and immediate assessments and quick judgment were needed, the professionalism and dedication of my two colleagues shone through. Of course, that was a one-off experience for me, but men and women such as my two Stourbridge paramedics face such situations day in, day out, night in, night out. That incident brought home to me that inadequate protection is sometimes afforded to such excellent professionals.

I also welcome the provision in clause 3 that allows a person to be convicted for impeding an emergency worker “by action directed” at a vehicle used by an emergency worker, because of another unfortunate aspect of the incident I have described, which occurred as we began to drive back to the hospital with our injured patient and prior to the police establishing order in the fracas. At one point, two young men mounted the steps at the side of the driver’s door and attempted to prevent our ambulance from moving away. The situation was unbelievably tense, but once again the calm and professional manner of my colleagues, and the way in which they handled the situation, enabled all of us to leave safely and to get the patient to hospital quickly.

The enacting of this legislation will underline our great respect for services such as the ambulance service, and it will also send a message to those who have less respect for them than us and to those who would try to frustrate their staff in their work. The decision to support the increase in the penalty for such behaviour to up to £5,000 will also serve to indicate to the wider public how seriously we regard such offences.

Members have mentioned other methods of getting this message out. I wish briefly to mention the work of the west midlands ambulance service, which runs an education programme throughout the midlands. It goes into schools and community groups to raise awareness of its work and to help to draw young people in particular closer to the service to encourage respect for its workers and appreciation of the role they play. When he speaks, will the Minister underline possible future plans to publicise and widen that educational role, which is very important?

Finally, I congratulate again my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on his success so far with this Bill, and I hope that colleagues from all parties will continue to support it in its latter stages.

I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the Father of the House on this Bill. If it is enacted, it will be a worthy addition to the statute book, as is recognised by the cross-party support that it has. The Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the lively and constructive debates on it in this House, and it will play an important role in addressing the serious problem of the obstruction of our emergency services. The Bill addresses an increasingly important issue. I hope that Members will forgive me if I repeat some arguments that have already been made, but the need for the Bill is worth reinforcing again.

The British crime survey shows that fire and rescue service firefighters and officers, along with police officers and prison service officers and others defined in the Bill as being in the protective services, are the people who are most at risk of experiencing violence and obstruction at work. Some 14 per cent. of workers in the occupational category report that they have experienced an incident of actual or threatened violence while working. The figure for the work force as a whole is 1.7 per cent., so there is a huge and outrageous difference. The former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister collected figures for England and Wales from 2004 at the request of the Chief Fire Officers Association. The stats show that there were almost 400 serious incidents in a nine-month period alone.

It is not only the number of incidents that is increasing, but their ferocity and seriousness. I am sure that most hon. Members in the Chamber know of at least a single incident that has occurred in their constituency or nearby that illustrates how serious the problem is becoming.

The Fire Brigades Union has published research showing that the instances of obstruction on UK fire crews runs at approximately 40 a week, and we understand that the problem may well be getting worse. I understand that the research is the first of its kind in the UK. The problem is also seriously underreported, so it is suggested that there could be as many as 120 incidents in one week. We believe that there is serious underreporting because only 18 of the 50 English and Welsh fire and rescue services responded to requests for information when the figures were being compiled. Only a third of the brigades thus added their numbers to the statistics that we have available.

My hon. Friend raises a valuable point that was discussed substantially on Second Reading. I mentioned that the Greater Manchester fire authority has an apparently appalling record in respect of attacks on its firefighters and I am sure that I speak for Salford Members when I say that we want to lose that record. I have read the material about the situation and my hon. Friend is right that underreporting is a problem. Does she agree that we should send out the message that the job of recording attacks that is carried out by the Greater Manchester fire authority and police should be done by other fire authorities?

I thank my hon. Friend for her timely intervention and agree with her. I understand that the arrangements for reporting have been tightened and improved so that the data that we have will reflect better the situation as a whole. However, the Bill will enable firefighters and fire officers to appreciate the importance of collecting such data because they will realise that it might be possible to do something about the problem.

My hon. Friend told us earlier about an attack that occurred in her constituency. It seems clear to me that the young man who was involved in the incident was not committing a first offence because it would not have been the first time that he had seen emergency workers as a legitimate target to allow him to have some fun. My guess is that his behaviour had been escalating up to the age of 17. If the Bill had been in place, perhaps his behaviour could have been addressed when he was 10 or 14 years old. The Bill would have imposed penalties, and perhaps the dreadful incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency could have been avoided. We need to nip things in the bud as early as possible and say that certain behaviour by members of our community is totally unacceptable. If we can do that early enough, we can hopefully prevent such incidents.

The FBU states that fire crews in some parts of the country are served a diet of bricks, bottles and missiles as they fight fires. In some cases, firefighters have been lured to an incident, ambushed and attacked, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out. Scaffolds have been thrown through the windows of emergency vehicles and crews have been attacked with concrete blocks. Bricks and bottles have been thrown, and crews and vehicles have been spat at.

The serious problem that my hon. Friend describes is a long way away from young people acting out of order. Does she agree that instead of hugging a hoodie, we should perhaps hug a firefighter?

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that I have taken a leaf out of the book of the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) over the past year. I have been out for an eight-hour shift with my local police force. I am in the midst of arranging a similar night out—if one can call it that—with my firefighters and ambulance crew. I look forward to seeing their experiences at first hand, although I am not sure that I will go as far as hugging them, unless, of course, they wish that to happen.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) sound like prime candidates for the police parliamentary scheme, which I have undertaken myself. I spent 30 days with the Greater Manchester police, so, like other hon. Members, I have seen it all. I strongly recommend the scheme to both my hon. Friends.

I am looking forward to taking part in the scheme. In fact, I have the papers on my desk as I speak. My only concern is that I might be expected to become fitter than I am. Once I have received clarification on that point, I will sign and submit the papers.

As I said, we unfortunately all know of incidents in our constituencies or neighbouring areas. I remember an incident that took place in a neighbouring constituency on a Guy Fawkes night when youths fired rockets at two firefighters as they responded to a call. Their injuries were so bad that they were both hospitalised.

At this juncture, it is useful to recall the words of the FBU’s general secretary, Matt Wrack. He said in March this year that the union welcomed the Bill and the cross-party support for it because the

“number and ferocity of the attacks has been getting worse and there have been several attacks this week.”

The Bill is thus central to firefighters’ concerns about their working conditions.

I wanted to speak about the Bill because I received representations from my constituents to ensure that I supported it. I thus read the FBU website and paramedics’ websites to find out what they said about the Bill and people’s experiences. It is clear that assault and abuse causes great concern because they take up many pages of those worthy websites.

As Matt Wrack said:

“If we can’t do our job because of violent assaults then it is our communities which are being put at risk. We are the targets, but it is our communities which are deprived of an emergency response which are the victims.”

He believes that the Bill must be part of a package of measures and that central to that package should be a wide range of educational measures to try to stop such attacks. The union is keen for statistics to be collected on such incidents. In some brigades, fire crews are being encouraged to record every single incident. However, as the union points out, the crews will be encouraged even more if they understand how the figures can be used.

The union also wants co-ordination and evaluation. I understand that various initiatives are being introduced throughout the country, including community-based projects with offenders and possible offenders. I know that we would all agree that there is a need for such initiatives to be properly monitored and evaluated nationally so that brigades can learn more quickly what works and what does not. Frankly, what works in one area will not necessarily work in another.

We need to understand the nature of the problems in our own communities and find remedies suited to our particular needs.

The Fire Brigades Union has also accurately pointed out that the end result of the continuation of these incidents could well be the effective withdrawal or diminution of services from certain areas. Unless the problem is dealt with, we run the risk of depriving parts of the UK of access to the first-class emergency services that we have all come to expect and appreciate. After all, if we have to wait for the police to accompany an ambulance worker or a firefighter into a certain part of the country, it means waiting for two emergency services rather than one, which will slow down our ability to respond to incidents. That would be a real shame, and would mean that there would be a postcode impact on 999 services.

Does the hon. Lady agree that we have reached a truly appalling state of affairs when these attacks threaten services that are so badly needed? Does she have any ideas about how to stop them, or what provokes them? Is it something specific—men in uniform, for example—that provokes them?

Personally, I think it has something to do with the high adrenaline and excitement associated with a blue flashing light, and the attendant drama. It may be cultural thing, with emergency services arriving at a scene, leading to a rush of adrenaline, from which some young people, unfortunately, get a thrill.

My father was a postman, but he did not often have the experiences that I understand certain people in the postal services have today. To take up the previous intervention, I think that there is something significant about uniforms as symbols of authority. A minority of people have made it impossible for the post to be delivered in certain localities. A minority of young boys see it as an opportunity to challenge symbols of authority. Clearly, although the Bill is important we also need other measures to deal with the problem of the socialisation of young men. We need to get them to accept that there are boundaries of acceptable behaviour, and that they should respect some symbols of authority.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot view one Bill as a panacea for all ills. We need to look at the provision of youth services and what happens in our schools, to build a picture of the sorts of remedies that can begin to impact on this growing social ill. In my own West Ham constituency, the council has used the Olympic games and other sporting events as an effective way of galvanising interest in sport. It has spent about £1 million each year for the last three years on sporting services for young people, and as a result, 40 per cent. fewer young people appeared in the magistrates court for the first time. I hope that the House will congratulate the London borough of Newham on that particular achievement, and thank it for continuing to invest in such services.

I am grateful to my long-standing hon. Friend for giving way again. I believe that her council should also be congratulated on its fantastic campaign to regenerate the borough and on its victory in bringing the 2012 Olympics to Stratford in the borough of Newham, which I hope will be yet another measure of—

Order. We are now straying a little wide of the mark.

It is a shame that I will not be able to respond to my hon. Friend by saying how grateful I am for his congratulations. Let us get back to the Bill.

Let us remember that the obstruction of emergency workers is not just a worrying and unwarranted assault on our hard-working and widely respected emergency workers. At worst, obstruction in an emergency can threaten people’s lives. Obstruction of emergency workers is becoming more of a problem, and the Bill can help to deal with it.

I am reminded of a case in Hertford, which I read about just a few weeks ago. An angry motorist tried to move an ambulance that was blocking a road and assaulted a female medic who was treating a seriously ill patient. The incident happened on a Saturday afternoon, and it caused fury in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire ambulance and paramedic service.

The high dependency unit was called about 4 o’clock in the afternoon to help a patient with severe breathing difficulties. The patient was at home, so there was no option but to park in the road. The crew were assisting the patient into the back of the ambulance when the car pulled up. The driver could not get past, so he got out of his car, climbed into the ambulance and let the handbrake off so that it rolled back. A woman technician came out of the back of the ambulance and found a man in the ambulance attempting to move it. Being confronted, the man walked off. She asked him what he thought he was doing, which I think is a fairly reasonable and measured response to such an incident. They exchanged words, and he slapped her round the head. Because of the delay, the patient’s condition deteriorated to such an extent that they had to call the paramedics through. I understand that the police are investigating the incident but have yet to make any arrest.

Does not that example support the view of Opposition Members that we should have kept the original wording of “aggravated assault”?

I suffer from the malady of not being a “learned” Member and find myself wishing that I had done a law degree, which would have been much more useful to me than literature—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Well, we do need people who understand books as well. I understand that the reference to assault was taken out of the Bill because there is already sufficient remedy in English law to tackle that problem.

I understand that the panel that advises on sentencing is consulting on sentencing for assaults and other violent offences, including the sort that we are talking about—the use of weapons, and when victims are serving the public, for example. I ask the Minister to pass on the concern of the House about this policy area because, on behalf of their communities, Members would like to see guidelines appropriate to the seriousness of the offences that we are dealing with.

I thank my hon. Friend. The Bill puts in statute a respect for emergency services and emergency service workers that may not hitherto have been established. I believe that it will incrementally change opinion, and the perception of those workers. It is a great pity that we need to do that, but when cases are brought to court and people are accused and tried for obstructing emergency crews, it may help to bring about a certain attitude on the part of the public, who may not have a natural respect for the authority and work of emergency services staff—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Let me finish the sentence before I forget.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Lady for interrupting. Now that Israel has killed scores of civilians in its disproportionate, dangerous and destructive response to events in the middle east and is behaving more like a rogue state, and given that it is a serial offender against United Nations resolutions, have you received any notice that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on Britain’s response to the terrible unfolding tragedy and the dangerous situation in the middle east?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clearly, the matter is very serious, but I have received no indication that the Government plan to make a statement—at least, not today.

I believe that I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for her eloquent speech. Does she agree that it is possible under current sentencing provision for the judge to take into account the fact that the victim is a public servant? A mechanism already exists in law, although we all agree that further work needs to be done on sentencing guidance.

That is my understanding of the position. As I said earlier, we need to create and enforce respect for people who work in difficult circumstances to serve the public. It is a pity that the measure is necessary, but it will be an added bonus on our statute book.

In April, a 999 crew were attacked just after 10 o’clock at night in Westburn road, Aberdeen. The ambulance was responding to an emergency call with sirens and blue lights activated when an object was thrown at its windscreen. It shattered the glass and badly shook up the paramedic who was driving. That was such an irresponsible act. It could have significantly injured the people in the ambulance and prevented the paramedics from getting to the scene to which they had been called. The paramedic was clearly dedicated, and continued to the emergency that had necessitated the 999 call and dealt with it. I am informed that paramedics have also been attacked in Grampian, but that was believed to be the first occasion on which an ambulance was attacked. In response to what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said, I am trying to emphasise that there is an escalation.

The hon. Lady may not know it, but I had the great privilege of being brought up in Aberdeen, not far from Westburn road. In Scotland, legislation provides that assaults against emergency workers constitute an aggravated offence. She has drawn attention to an incident in Aberdeen that clearly requires exemplary action to be taken against the assailants. However, the same provisions do not apply south of the border. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) made that point, but the hon. Lady persists in defending legislation that is, according to her own words, inadequate for the task.

Again, I am not a learned Member, but I understand that there is a difference between Scots law and English law. The provisions in Scots law were necessary to deal with a specific matter, but their incorporation into English law would create confusion. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point later.

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. I am not a learned Member either—my background is in architecture—but is not the problem the fact that people who hit a policeman know that that is a serious offence, but that the general public do not view hitting an ambulance worker or member of a fire crew in the same way? Surely we should try to get young people to appreciate that hurting an emergency worker is the same as hurting a police officer, and would have the same repercussions.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I can only give the same answer: I understand that incorporating provisions from Scots law into English law would create confusion rather than assist. I agree with his sentiments—people must know that when they attack our paramedics, firefighters and others who attempt to assist the public, the full force of the law will bear down on them and the crime will be perceived as serious.

Amendments in Committee were thoughtful and measured. Broadening the scope of the offence to include assaulting and impeding was sensible. I am pleased that the Government have announced that several measures will be introduced to complement the new law. Such attacks can be viewed as part of a bigger picture, and it is important to include them in the Government’s general antisocial behaviour agenda. It must be made clear to people involved in such incidents that their behaviour is unacceptable. We must underline the fact that they are threatening lives, attacking brave, hard-working and committed public servants and depriving their communities of vital public services.

From the magnitude and frequency of the incidents, it would appear that some sort of national education campaign, co-ordinated with the emergency services, is required to change people’s attitudes to such behaviour.

My hon. Friend has been most generous in giving way. Like other hon. Members, she has highlighted the seriousness of the situation and the need for this important Bill. However, does she agree that the examples that we have heard tend to under-represent the seriousness of the position? My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) spoke about how busy ambulance workers are, going from one emergency call to another, and there must be assaults that are not reported. We therefore underestimate the true scale of the situation and we need the Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is steering so carefully through Parliament.

My hon. Friend is right. There is gross under-reporting of incidents. I stress to Opposition Members who have intervened that the abuse and minor incidents go unreported, perhaps because there is no redress in law to deal with young people or other individuals who commit such acts. If there were such redress—which there soon will be, thanks to the diligence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West—there would be a point in reporting the abuse, aggravation and obstruction. The reported figures will thus increase, but that will not mean that the number of incidents has increased. It will simply mean that people now have redress and a means of dealing with obstruction and petty violence—the small incidents that do not go to court and cannot currently be tackled.

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way and I am most grateful to her. She mentioned the need for a national education campaign. Does she agree that parents, perhaps especially fathers, play a crucial role? We must nip in the bud the sort of attitudes that we have been considering, and that must be done in people’s homes, because children first learn behaviour from their parents.

I agree. There is nothing to add to the hon. Gentleman’s eloquent intervention.

I sincerely hope that the incidents are happening through ignorance of their consequences rather than being malicious attacks on community services. The Bill will also help to underline the overwhelming public support for our emergency workers, and to reflect just how unacceptable attacks on hard-working law-abiding people are.

The Bill has avoided creating a range of different offences of assault applying to different groups of public servants. While I agree that any assault on public sector staff is abhorrent and to be condemned, tougher sentences for such assaults can be achieved through the Sentencing Guidelines Council. That would be preferable to risking muddying the waters with regard to the protection already offered by the law on assault, which is both universal and equal. The fact that the victim of an assault was serving the public is already taken into account by the courts when sentencing, and is regarded as a serious aggravating factor.

I am pleased that the Bill has seen fit to cover the full range of emergency workers who can conceivably be expected to respond to emergency situations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said. To restrict the legislation to emergency services that display a flashing blue light would be too prohibitive, and would, as has been stated at earlier stages, remove the protection provided by the Bill from a number of vital parts of our emergency services. I also accept the need for the provision allowing the Secretary of State to modify the legislation to allow further categories of emergency worker to be included under its protection.

The Bill has benefited from constructive debates, and constructive amendments in Committee, and will prove to be effective. It is a clear and comprehensive Bill, and fills an important gap in our legislation. I therefore commend it to the House.

It gives me great pleasure to follow a number of eloquent hon. Members in the debate. As a new Member of the House, I am learning from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), whose brevity, eloquence and commitment to his Bill provide a model that I hope to pursue in my parliamentary career—which might not be as long as his, but which will, I hope, be at least as distinguished.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised the issue of air and mountain rescue services being included in the provisions. I am glad that the Bill offers the Secretary of State the opportunity to add categories of people to the list of emergency workers, or to delete them. I am sure that the Minister was listening to what was said about that. I want to comment later on emergency services other than those that have taken up the main part of our debate.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who is no longer in his place—

Yes, he is.

My apologies. He has moved places, just to confuse me.

My hon. Friend talked about the Government’s respect agenda. Throughout the debate, there has been an undercurrent of comments about the lack of respect that such attacks demonstrate. They illustrate a lack of respect from young people and adults towards the vital services that emergency workers provide to us all. The Government’s respect agenda and the provisions of the Bill meet up in a very helpful way in that regard.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) highlighted horrific examples of the problems that some emergency workers face. I want to place on record the fact that I have now been inspired to go out with emergency workers in Hackney. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said, there is nothing like doing it if we want to learn at first hand the difficulties that emergency workers face. My hon. Friend’s indignation highlighted the points that she raised, and I congratulate her on one of the most eloquent speeches that I have heard her make in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is not in the Chamber today, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) paid homage to his skills as an orator in the House on these sitting Fridays. I commend her particularly for her eloquence and statistical knowledge, and for the research that she has done on this important issue. I will not go into the issue of the Olympics in Newham, but she will realise that I mention it in passing because they will be taking place in Hackney as well.

We are here to discuss the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Bill. It is an important Bill, because our emergency workers are the backbone of a decent and caring society. The citizens of a well-run country with a responsive and effective Government expect proper and appropriate action to be taken in an emergency or crisis. They should receive such action, and we should do all that we can to prevent anything from hindering it. That is what the Bill is all about. It underlines and reinforces the totally legitimate expectation of British citizens that emergency workers will be able to carry out their duties and serve the public without fear of obstruction.

We have focused on the police, fire and ambulance services today. I am glad, however, that the Bill also covers voluntary organisations and other agencies that work on behalf of the state. These include organisations such as St. John Ambulance, and the mountain rescue teams that provide such great service in remote parts of our islands to rescue people in difficulty. No one has yet mentioned the lifeboat crews, who voluntarily do a great deal in their free time to rescue people in difficulty at sea. Speaking as a former merchant seawoman, I feel strongly about safety at sea, and it is vital that the work of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution should be recognised in our debate today.

The offence of assaulting a police officer already exists, as hon. Members have mentioned. It carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison, as does common assault. The criminal law includes a range of powers and penalties to protect individuals from violent behaviour. Perhaps the lawyers in the House will criticise me for saying this, but I am not too concerned about the difference. My concern is the outcome. If someone is prevented from doing their job—be they a police officer, a firefighter, an ambulance worker or any of the other emergency workers that we have mentioned—the sentence must be proportionate to the crime. Sentencing guidelines allow the courts to take into account that the person involved is a public sector worker. The Bill will reinforce and underline that, by creating a separate offence.

The hon. Lady mentioned St. John Ambulance. A St. John Ambulance crew attended a carnival in Chudleigh in my constituency recently, to provide first aid services. Is she aware that, if someone tried to prevent those crew members from doing that job, it would not be an offence under the provisions of the Bill? The legislation would kick in only for an ambulance capable of carrying out blue-light duties responding to a blue-light incident.

I am indeed aware of that distinction. I am sure that the Minister will go into this in more detail in his response. It is important to implement law that it is possible to deliver, and by drawing the provisions narrowly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has done, it is possible to be clear about exactly when the law will kick in. Difficulties could result if the Bill had a very wide remit. However, it could represent the first step towards further changes. We often see law being introduced incrementally. As one part proves successful, other elements are added to it. The Bill contains a degree of discretion, in that the Secretary of State may add further categories of worker. It does not allow for other situations to be added, but who is to say that that could not be changed in the future?

The hon. Lady refers to making clear what the provisions cover. I am not an hon. and learned Member, and perhaps I am being a bit slow, but I would have thought that it was very clear to say that if someone obstructs a St. John Ambulance crew who are in uniform at an event, they are committing an offence. To say that it is an offence to obstruct emergency workers at certain times when they are responding to certain incidents is actually unclear.

We are becoming involved in definitions now. It is a question of whether St. John Ambulance, for instance, is attending on behalf of the public service, which will often not be the case. I may not be best qualified to comment on such questions, but the Minister may be able to clarify the position. The hon. Member for Teignbridge may not be hon. and learned, but he is certainly au fait with parts of the law with which I, as a new Member, am less familiar.

As I have said, the sentencing guidelines allow sentences for attacks on public servants to be weighted. I hope that the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s recent consultation on sentencing for violent crimes against the person will produce some sensible proposals. Perhaps the Minister could give us a tantalising glimpse of anything that may have emerged from that consultation, which was wide-ranging and to which a number of interesting contributions were made. That might reassure Members, including me, that some of the points we have raised could be dealt with in that way rather than by the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham spoke of young people larking around, and impeding emergency workers. As he and others have pointed out, education is an important way of tackling that kind of obstruction. I also agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes).

I want to say something about the work of the London fire service. I am particularly impressed by what Graham Howgate, the Hackney borough commander, has done in collaboration with the Shoreditch service. They have been working with fire cadets. Young people are chosen for the scheme because they are likely to become criminals if they are not channelled in the right direction at a particular time. They may commit a crime if they are not given support, and this excellent scheme provides them with that support. It gives them a sense of purpose, and educates them about the work of the fire service. The results have been good so far, and I wonder why the scheme has not been adopted more widely. Although such matters are not in the Minister’s remit, I hope he will take up that question with Ministers in other Departments.

Since the creation of a borough command unit in Hackney, some interesting collaborative work has been done, thanks largely to Valerie Shawcross, chair of the London fire authority. Although largely unsung, her achievement has been significant.

One of the first things that Commander Howgate and his team observed was that a number of fires are started in abandoned cars. They would often have to deal with such fires, and clear up the mess. Such fires were frequently started by young people in particular spots in Hackney, but happily the problem has now been solved. Cars are removed much more quickly, because the fire service mapped the incidence of the attacks. It was realised that if the cars were removed, there would be less arson, less antisocial behaviour and fewer opportunities for young people to impede emergency workers in connection with their crimes.

Although the Bill is welcome, the low-level obstruction that Members have mentioned is also important. The Hackney firefighters repeatedly find that equipment is stolen from their fire engines when they are out on a job. They themselves may not be impeded, but bolt cutters—which are particularly popular—and other emergency equipment are often stolen as trophies. Lack of respect for public services is a crucial part of what the Bill attempts to tackle. It deals with the worst elements, but we and, in particular, the Government, have a responsibility to consider a number of possible solutions.

I was disturbed by the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, which involved an adult. We should bear it in mind that young people do not always cause these problems, although we tend to focus on them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is smiling, because of course he wants to hug the hoodies, but not all young people are bad, whether they wear hoodies or not.

The Bill sends out an important signal about the seriousness of impeding emergency workers. Members may have heard of a project called “Prison? Me? No way!”. It is run by an educational trust set up by prison officers, which visits secondary school across the country to demonstrate the reality of prison to young people. There is a mock-up of a cell on the back of a lorry, and young people are locked into it. Prison officers drill the young people in teams, and explain to them clearly what the prison regime means. In combination with such educational initiatives, the Bill should help young people to realise gradually that if they commit the offences that we have heard about today, they could end up in prison. Organisations such as the one that I have described are there to remind them that that is a very undesirable consequence of such action.

The Bill obviously focuses on the criminal act of impeding emergency workers, but the services themselves have acted both to protect their staff and, crucially, to encourage them to report incidents. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley, Greater Manchester is ahead of the game because of the particular problems that it has experienced. Various initiatives have been launched, including the placing of video cameras in the cabs of appliances so that offenders can be identified. I know that one of the Opposition parties has persistently resisted the installation of CCTV. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Teignbridge wants to tell us now whether he supports the move to put video cameras in cabs. It appears that he does not wish to take me up on that, but it may be a subject for another debate.

As we heard earlier, in Northern Ireland support is already given to firefighters along the lines suggested in the Bill, but the Bill will apply to ambulance workers and coastguards there. It is important to recognise that it will not apply only to England.

Although the Bill mainly concerns ambulance workers, we should bear in mind the implications for other public service workers, notably in the national health service. Early indications suggest that 71 per cent. of staff trained in the NHS to deal with potentially aggressive and violent incidents believe that they have the necessary skills to do so, compared with only 29 per cent. before the training. We must not sit back and assume that the Bill alone will solve the problem. I am sure none of my hon. Friends is doing that. We may try to initiate further debates in the House to discuss other ways of protecting emergency workers. The law is an important tool, but it is not the only one.

The NHS, supported by the British Medical Association, Unison and the Royal College of Nursing, has produced posters reminding would-be offenders of the tough penalties that they could incur. I hope that public information campaigns will stress the reality that the Bill is law, and that people may, in the most serious cases, be sent to prison.

Several of us have mentioned young people and antisocial behaviour. What is needed is proper youth work, and I am glad that the Government have provided more money for the purpose. In my borough of Hackney, nearly £1 million extra will be spent on youth work this year. We pay attention to the respect agenda, and aim to tackle antisocial behaviour at all levels, nipping it in the bud. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham said, it must come to be seen as absolutely unacceptable.

The decent folk whom I meet on doorsteps nearly every week want to lead peaceful lives. They do not want their emergency workers to be impeded. Low-level activity escalates quickly if it is not challenged, and we must challenge it. Sport, including competitive sport, is an important way of channelling young people’s energies in the right direction, as is education. I will cite one example from a visit to Mossbourne city academy on the edge of my constituency. I talked to children and staff at the school, and asked one child what he liked about the school. He said that he liked the discipline. I was surprised that a 12-year-old said that, as one does not tend to think of that as a top desire of a child of that age.

Young Conservative.

I would not want to comment on how the hon. Gentleman brings up his children.

I was puzzled by what the child said, so I asked him what he meant. He said that the discipline meant that he could get on and do his work, concentrate and not be messed around. He was not a top achiever but a child who wanted to learn and have a disciplined framework in school. Children stay late and come at weekends to work at that school, because they find it a quiet and calm environment. In that regard, the Government’s agenda of extended education also helps to generate respect. Children want a framework of stability, and the Bill will help to achieve that.

I want to end on one incident from my experience as a teenager. I was sailing with my older brother, who had offered to take me out off the Isle of Wight. I was not an experienced sailor, but I thought that it would be exciting, which it was until we capsized in the middle of the Solent. I was cold, shivering and scared. I give credit to my older brother, who did everything that he needed to do and whom I trusted, but I was young and scared. Who came to our rescue? It was the coastguard. Had they not been there, I do not know whether I would be here today. There were there, however, and they were not impeded. Nobody tried to stop them getting to me, and they rescued me. For that, I am ever grateful.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on introducing this important Bill and adding a further protection to our emergency workers in the course of their duties in protecting the public of this country.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I add my voice to all those who have praised my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and congratulate him on successfully steering his Bill through all its stages. The signs are encouraging that it will also pass today’s stage.

I supported the Bill on Second Reading, and I am pleased to do so again today. On that earlier occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West explained his reason for adjusting the focus of his Bill. He made a good decision. In its new form, the Bill is positioned between those cases that involve no offence having been committed and those more serious cases involving assaults on emergency workers, which can attract serious sentences of imprisonment, as we heard earlier. An offence of obstructing an emergency worker in the execution of his or her duty is a valuable addition, as, for a long time, there has been such an offence to protect police officers from being obstructed in the execution of their duties.

Some people might therefore think that the Bill is quite narrow, but I hope to show that its application is broad. People might be pleasantly surprised at what a valuable tool the Bill will be to emergency services in adopting policies of zero tolerance to such behaviour, and to the prosecuting authorities—the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—in enforcing the law. The Bill extends the same protection from obstruction enjoyed by the police to the other blue light services, but applies more widely than to the blue light services alone. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has secured a provision in the Bill for the protection to be extended later to other emergency workers. I congratulate him on ensuring that the Bill protects emergency workers from obstruction at every stage of their response to an emergency, which is important.

Some Members have asked about the Bill’s application to mountain rescue workers, and I think that I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that they do not attract protection under the Bill as drafted. Like him, I examined the provision about air ambulance services, which are provided at the request of a national health service body. That would not extend to mountain rescue services, such as those launched from RAF Stafford in my constituency, which rescue people lost on mountains in Wales. Clause 1(2)(f)(ii) extends protection to

“any other person or organisation operating a vessel for the purpose of providing a rescue service”.

I am pretty sure that that the definition of “vessel” would restrict the protection to ships on the sea, and would not include vessels that carry people through the air. If I am wrong, of course, the provision would be wide enough to protect those engaged in mountain rescue services. If not, although, as my right hon. Friend said in his speech, it is too late now to amend the Bill further, I urge the Minister to consider making use of the power in clause 5 to extend the protection to other groups, to make sure that the crew of aircraft who are engaged in saving and rescuing people are also protected.

I am pleased that protection is extended to fire and rescue service workers. In Staffordshire, horrendous news reports appear from time to time about obstruction and assaults on fire and rescue workers. Happily, such occurrences are few and far between. I hasten to add that the Bill is not intended to deal with hoax calls, which are a much more prevalent nuisance to fire and rescue service workers. In relation to fire and rescue service work, a specific offence already exists for hoax calls, which prevent people from doing their job and saving lives when necessary.

Fire and rescue service workers are usually enormously popular, which is why those who obstruct and assault them are such a small minority. At the time of the last national pay strike, however, there was a little ill feeling in some areas of Staffordshire towards fire and rescue service workers. Unchecked, that could have become the kind of behaviour about which we have heard today. Even before that strike began, however, Staffordshire fire and rescue service had embarked on a community fire safety strategy, which, once the strike was out of the way, applied fully. That involved a widespread campaign to issue householders with smoke alarms and, as other Members have described, of fire and rescue service officers meeting young people and families in schools and more informal settings such as school and garden fetes, to explain their work. That has ensured that fire crews get much earlier notice of a fire, so that they can respond to it more quickly, and that there is less chance of people wanting to obstruct them, as they understand the importance of the job.

The happy ending to the story in Staffordshire is that, as a result of that community fire safety strategy, the number of deaths in fires has dropped dramatically. That fall has been long-lasting, which is a tribute to the workers who have committed themselves to go into communities, meet people and persuade them to protect their property and lives with smoke alarms and to understand the importance of fire workers and not getting in their way.

Having mentioned the national pay strike, I hope that it will be a long time before we see green goddesses back on our streets. The Bill, however, has the foresight to extend to members of the armed forces who carry out the duties of firefighters the same protection from obstruction as fire and rescue service workers. That is important, albeit that none of us wishes to see the provision apply, as we would prefer the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force to continue their normal duties and not have to protect us from fire as well.

I am pleased that the Bill protects crew members of the third of the emergency services—the ambulance service. Hon. Members might know that Staffordshire has the best-performing ambulance service in the country. That is no mere puff or boast; anyone who studies the statistics will see that, year after year, Staffordshire ambulance service massively outperforms any other in the country in its response times and the number of lives saved as a result. There is a secret to our success. Our ambulance service has tried desperately for many years to explain it to other services and to persuade them to adopt the same standards, but sadly too few have followed so far, although I know that it has been on the Government’s agenda since their policy statement last year to persuade other services to go the same way.

As a footnote I should add, if you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the recent large ambulance service mergers we successfully argued that Staffordshire ambulance service should stay out of a west midlands service precisely because our standards are so much higher than others. There was concern that the standards of a very good ambulance service might in the course of a merger fall, by however small a degree, and that that would harm the public of Staffordshire.

I mention that because, although we have the best-performing service in the country and all residents of Staffordshire know that, we still face the problem of a minority of people obstructing, assaulting and threatening ambulance service crews as they go about their duties. There was a horrendous report last year of an ambulance crew member being badly assaulted and seriously injured.

It might be a coincidence, but Staffordshire ambulance service recently issued—on 6 July—its own press release saying that it has

“a robust policy of zero tolerance toward any alleged verbal or violent behaviour”

aimed at its crews. The release says:

“This Ambulance Trust appeal to the Community to help change the apparent attitudes developing in society that seems to say it’s ok to behave in such a way.”

I would add that, if such societal attitudes develop and embed in behaviour, just as the violence and abuse referred to in the release would worsen, so would obstruction of ambulance crews, which would be highly undesirable.

As I mentioned in an intervention, the Bill is important in the education process for which many hon. Members have called as part of the response to the problem. It is important that we send the message that we think that this is such an important issue that we are creating a specific offence of obstructing emergency workers. We do not wish to send mixed messages—that the matter is important but we are not doing anything to face up to it.

My right hon. Friend gave an assurance that the Bill extends more widely than to employees of ambulance services. There has been some debate about whether that means voluntary workers such as St. John Ambulance, but I want to mention another group of people who are extremely significant in Staffordshire and other rural ambulance services: community first-responders. There is a strong association of community first-responders around the country. They are remarkable people who voluntarily undergo training by paid ambulance service workers and stand ready in their isolated localities and communities to receive calls to attend the scenes of serious incidents. Very often, because they are in isolated locations, they are first on the scene, before the ambulance crew arrives in response to the 999 call. I stress that they are volunteers who attend in their own time and who have the skills to deal with however horrific a situation they find when they reach their destination, where they help of their free will keeping people safe and alive until the professional crew arrives.

I also welcome the fact that the Bill extends to the air ambulance service. I tried to think in what ways people in helicopters might be obstructed in carrying out their duties and saving lives. The most obvious situation is somebody obstructing the landing of a helicopter that is picking up someone who is seriously injured in order to take them to hospital. Therefore, there is a point to that provision.

I shall not take up time dealing with the other groups of people who attract the Bill’s protection, but I should like to mention the case of staff who are transporting organs from one hospital to another in order to save a live in a transplant operation or delivering much needed blood that is required for a serious operation. They are clearly carrying out highly time-sensitive work, and obstructing them in the course of their duties could have serious consequences. It is right that they attract the protection of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch mentioned protection for those who are willing to put out to sea to save lives. There is no coast in my constituency; we are a long way from the coast in every direction, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, people travel to the seaside and might get into danger. Conceivably, that could be any resident of my constituency. It is therefore pleasing to know that the protection of the law extends to people doing such important work.

I said that clause 1(3) is sensibly wide, covering all the emergency operation: the journey to the scene of the incident, the preparatory work at the scene and the time spent giving help at the scene. The entire process is covered by the Bill and protects those doing such work.

Subsection (4) contains a comprehensive definition of emergency circumstances. I am particularly pleased that it extends to cases involving mental illness, which are so easily overlooked. It is interesting to note the protection offered concerning serious harm to the environment. I think instantly of the great expanse of beauty in my constituency in Cannock Chase, where there are numerous sites of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty, which during the summer months are at serious risk of an outbreak of fire. Somebody obstructing the fire services on their way to tackling a fire in an open space such as Cannock Chase could be endangering hundreds of square miles of sensitive landscape, and I see the point in the provision.

The same point applies to buildings and premises. If the response is delayed, the extent of damage can be great. Perhaps most obviously, life and death situations are also covered, in subsection (4)(b).

I said that the Bill is surprisingly broad, and clause 2 is certainly a good example of that. Whereas the primary protection is for an emergency worker who is usually an employee of a fire or ambulance service, clause 2 extends to a person assisting such a worker. As I think I heard my right hon. Friend say, such a person could be a good Samaritan among the public who steps forward to help emergency workers at the scene. If that person, anxious and willing to assist, is obstructed on their way to give that assistance, it would be an offence. That is the impressive extent of the coverage that the Bill offers.

Action that amounts to obstruction is also widely defined in clause 3(1). It can consist of action other than physical obstruction, and when trying to think of examples of that, I recalled the incident last summer when someone killed a number of people at a garden barbecue and the police, fire service and ambulance service all stayed away for several hours because they believed that there was a person at the scene who was armed and would be a danger to the emergency workers who attended. I realised that a way in which workers could be obstructed by other than physical means was by someone maliciously and falsely claiming that there was something at the scene that would make it dangerous for them to attend—an armed person or explosive device, for example—thus keeping them away from the scene.

The Bill is impressive. It is widely drawn to cover the objectives. Critics of the Bill who complain that it does not deal with aggravated assault have the wrong target, because it is filling a space, albeit not that one, and by so doing it will provide valuable assistance to our emergency workers who, after all, face enough danger in their jobs. They act out of public spiritedness, first and foremost, because they want to serve the public, to save lives and to prevent suffering and damage. Their jobs are hard enough without a very small minority of irresponsible people getting in their way and preventing them from doing their job, thus putting other people in more serious danger and putting property at greater risk of damage than would otherwise have been the case. The Bill is welcome and I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on his success in bringing it to this point.

Like other hon. Members, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for introducing the Bill because I, too, have done night shifts and day shifts with police, ambulance and fire services and with accident and emergency services at the hospital in my constituency. I greatly admire people who spend their time in public service and now that I have worked those shifts with the emergency services my admiration for what they do knows no bounds. They go out and work in a difficult environment trying to resolve some substantial problems, and they do so in a way that is kind and friendly and helps people who are in severe distress. Like other hon. Members, I think that it is outrageous that, when doing that, they face the threat of attack and aggression.

I have received a communication from Cheshire fire service—an admirable fire service—telling me that there were 25 reported incidents in 2005. On 21 occasions, stones, bricks, bottles, iron bars or golf balls were thrown at crew attending incidents. On several of those occasions, the vehicle but not the crew was hit, and on four occasions the appliance was forced to withdraw to ensure the safety of crew and prevent the situation from worsening. Some of the incidents were severe: for example, a firefighter attending a rubbish fire was attacked by two youths who smashed his visor on his helmet, cutting his eye. Other incidents have involved water bombs being thrown that forced the appliance to swerve when it was trying to get to a fire to tackle it. A fire service mechanic was travelling in his marked vehicle when two youths pulled out what appeared to be a firearm and aimed it at the vehicle. A crew member on an appliance that was attending a rubbish fire was hit by a 2-ft iron bar. So far in 2006, stones, bricks, bottles and other debris have been thrown at crews attending incidents on eight occasions, causing crew to consider whether they could get through to deal with the fire. Firefighters attending a fire in June were threatened with knives by a gang of youths and the crew was forced to withdraw from the scene.

All those incidents are taken extremely seriously by Cheshire fire and rescue service, which is working to increase the safety of its personnel. The service has installed closed-circuit television cameras on appliances in a number of the areas it covers, and it intends to introduce them across its whole area as soon as it can. In addition, appliances have high-visibility stickers stating that they are equipped with CCTV recording equipment. The service is determined not only to deter such incidents, but to make it clear to people that offenders who can be identified will be prosecuted.

Not only does our fire service deal with emergency fires, but it tries to prevent them. We have an extremely effective initiative whereby a home safety assessment is completed every 15 minutes, every day, seven days a week. I particularly admire our fire service personnel for the way in which they constantly seek ways to introduce safety into our local community. As well as going out, risking their own lives and safety in dangerous incidents, they are looking for ways to make our community a better place to live by helping people to make their homes safe and dealing with slip and trip hazards for older people.

The fire service is also involving local young people in such work. At a surgery in a community building that had had problems with fires being lit, I saw fire crews talking to quite young children and explaining to them what a fire does, how dangerous it can be, and their role in helping to make their local community safer. The children were getting very involved—actually, they had a great time. Adults were treating them with respect and the children were learning directly from important role models what respect means in a local community. I was pleased because the community in question has a number of disadvantages and having adults of that type—admirable role models—coming in is not just about dealing with current problems, but about giving young people an opportunity to see what they can do in future.

The experience that my hon. Friend describes is seen in my constituency, too. The community in the old mining village of Chopwell was being destroyed by drugs and lack of investment. The retained service there has a young firefighters club where young people go to work with the fire brigade. They learn how to respect their homes and each other. The service also holds open days and public days, so it is a real community initiative.

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that work. In my community, too, groups of young people are brought along to fire service stations where they can use the equipment, learn about what is happening, and get a sound idea of the future prospects, not only for their community, but for themselves through going into public service. The fire service is an integral and key part of our community, which is why the Bill is so important. The Bill shows that we, too, believe that our emergency services are key, integral, valued and respected parts of our community that we not only respect, but are prepared to defend.

We are talking about one of the things that particularly disconcerts me about the position for fire service personnel, ambulance personnel and people in accident and emergency services at hospitals. I hope that we will be able to look at that to see whether the ability to modify might need to take into account the needs of accident and emergency workers, particularly people who work shifts on a Friday or Saturday night and have to deal with the alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour that can kick off in hospitals sometimes.

It is particularly important that we protect people who work in stressful jobs and who should be able to know that they can call on other people when they need help. I am concerned that paramedics who have suffered assaults and attacks on their vehicles when they are working in an extremely stressful environment feel that they cannot continue to work in the front line. It is shocking that they believe that they are not sufficiently protected to be able to continue to do their valuable job, because we all want them to.

I want to draw attention to Merseyside and Cheshire ambulance services, because the work that is being carried out locally to tackle assaults on crews is drawing together in the most effective way management and trade unions to get across the message not just that we will not tolerate attacks on ambulance crews, but that if someone prevents an emergency service from getting out and doing its job, it could be that person or a member of their family who faces the effect. It is admirable that the management and Unison are working together to get that message across in a poster and public relations campaign. The figures indicate that ambulance crews reported 86 separate incidents involving an assault on them during 2005 in Merseyside and Cheshire. That is completely unacceptable. The Bill sends a clear message that we will not tolerate that sort of thing and I would like to add not just my support and that of the ambulance and fire services in my local area, but that of all my constituents, who want to see our emergency services given the protection and support that they need and deserve.

I congratulate the Father of the House on his success in allowing the Bill to proceed so smoothly and quickly through the House. I repeat the words that were offered on Second Reading and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert): the Conservatives wish the Bill to proceed as quickly and smoothly as possible to the statute book. I offer my apologies to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend. He cannot be with us today because he is in his constituency seeking to protect the jobs of emergency workers in the NHS and other health workers who are threatened by incipient cuts to the health service in Sussex, and indeed Surrey.

We wish the Bill to proceed because we recognise that it performs three valuable functions and in that respect we are more than happy to give it our full support. First, it plugs a legislative gap. We are aware that, at the moment, legislative protection is afforded to the police as they go about their duties. Everyone knows that if they assault a police officer, it is an aggravated offence for which they will face a tougher sentence. As a result of the Bill being passed, a signal will be sent that to obstruct an emergency worker, whether it is an NHS worker, a fireman or someone who is working for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or the coastguard, will also mean facing a particularly severe punishment. In that respect, we wholeheartedly support the legislation.

As well as plugging a gap, the Bill sends a message. We do not always support legislation that sends a message, because sometimes we believe that legislation should not be used so lightly, simply to communicate censoriousness on the part of the House. However, by sending a message, the Bill can have a welcome deterrent effect. We have heard from a number of hon. Members this morning about the increase in the number of incidents of attacks on, in particular, ambulance workers. There is a clear need for legislative action to ensure that those tempted to go down that path understand that the House and the Government wish to prevent them from behaving in that way.

The third reason why we want the Bill passed is because we believe that those who obstruct the work of emergency workers are guilty of a double crime: not only are they interfering criminally with the work of public servants, they are endangering the lives of others. As well as interfering in the effective provision of a public service, they are maximising the risk to others, whom those public servants are attempting to assist. In that respect, because those who commit such crimes are guilty of a double assault, we welcome the Bill.

As my hon. Friend said earlier, we wish to enter one note of regret. The original legislation that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) introduced was based on the Bill that was introduced in the Scottish Parliament. For the sake of ease of legislative drafting, he attempted to introduce a Bill that was, in many respects, almost identical to the Scottish legislation. As someone who was born in Edinburgh and raised in Aberdeen, I am well aware that Scottish and English law are distinct from one another, and it may not be the case that Bills introduced in Scotland can have identical application in England. However, in order to introduce his Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had to negotiate with the Home Office, as he did in a spirit of good faith, and it insisted on dropping the aspect of the Bill that dealt specifically with assault. That is a matter of regret because, as has been spelled out by almost all hon. Members who have spoken, the incidence of direct physical assaults on emergency workers has increased in recent years, and legislation to deal with that would be welcome.

Indeed, the Government recognised that in their manifesto, which says:

“we will introduce tougher sentences for carrying replica guns, for those involved in serious knife crimes and for those convicted of assaulting workers serving the public.”

They have accepted legislative changes to deal with those carrying replica guns and with serious knife crimes, but when it comes to protecting workers who serve the public, they do not want legislation and say instead that the Sentencing Guidelines Council will do our work for us. We all remember that in recent weeks some of the decisions taken in court by judges acting in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines Council have earned the criticism of Home Office Ministers. How can it be that judges who are operating according to the Sentencing Guidelines Council were excoriated by the Home Secretary two weeks ago but are now, according to what Home Office Ministers have said, to be the agents of the protection that we all feel that is required?

The onus is on the Minister to explain precisely how the Sentencing Guidelines Council will give effect to the feeling of the House to ensure that emergency workers get the protection they deserve. He must also explain why legislative action is not specifically required in this case. What is it about emergency workers that means that they do not deserve the same legislative protection that he has extended to other categories of potential victims in the range of legislation that he is introducing?

I look forward to hearing from the Minister as he provides enlightenment on this and many other topics. It remains only for me to say that we congratulate the Father of the House on introducing this much needed legislation. Our only regret is that his original intent was blunted by the Home Office.

I congratulate the Father of the House on securing the Bill and on facilitating its smooth passage.

As a member of the 1997 intake and a London MP, let me start in the same place as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) did. At that time, we sat for perhaps half the Fridays available instead of 13. That was an interesting way to get more and more practice in this place. None of us can ever get enough of that. We had all-day Adjournment debates as well as debates on private Members’ Bills. I remember with great fondness duelling constantly, but mostly failing in the attempt, with my right hon. Friend—I hope that he would not have minded me calling him that—the former Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. As this is the first time that I have participated on a Friday since his sad demise, I want to put on record how much I learned from him. He was much maligned, misunderstood and excoriated—not least by Labour Members who did not know any better—but he will be sadly missed, not least by the 1997 intake of Friday boys, some of whom have been mentioned in dispatches today and some not.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on securing cross-party support for the Bill. I also congratulate him on selecting, from among the plethora of choice of legal advice in this House, my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) rather than certain other learned colleagues. I can furnish him with a list of those on both sides of the House from whom he should never seek legal advice.

It is important—this has underscored many of today’s speeches—to say what precisely the Bill is supposed to do. It is not an attempt to reinvent assault legislation. It is not an attempt to establish a legislative framework for other things such as education awareness, antisocial behaviour, respect and all the other relevant considerations that hon. Members have mentioned. The Bill does not seek to achieve all that. Nor does it seek to afford aggravated status to the offence of obstructing emergency workers—a point to which I shall return.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) suggests, the Bill seeks to fill a serious gap. Many of the concerns that he and my hon. Friends expressed would be more relevant if we wanted the Bill to be an overall comprehensive measure like the Scottish Act, but the Bill does not profess to be such a measure. There is no need for that, not least because, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath well knows, the Scottish Act sought to fill considerably more gaps in the Scottish legislative framework, and those gaps simply are not there in English legislation.

I had to check my notes on this point, but I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, for saying that a Bill that the Home Office had anything to do with was short and clear. That has not entirely been my experience, either as a Back Bencher or as a Minister, particularly in the Home Office, so I am grateful for those comments. The Bill is short and clear—rightly so, because these are extraordinarily serious matters, and filling the gap is hugely important.

I must confess that although hon. Friends and colleagues have tried to explain such behaviour, I do not entirely understand why people think it a clever, smart or positive use of spare time to throw rocks at ambulances, or why they regard people in uniform who seek to help the public, and who invariably save lives, as invading their turf, or think that they are just “uniforms”, like the police. Some colleagues were even more generous, saying that the blue lights sparked off adrenaline, everyone became terribly excited, and testosterone levels went through the roof, but none of those are excuses for impeding, obstructing or doing something worse to prevent our emergency workers from going about their business. That simply is not right in any way, shape or form. Whether it is just a kick-out at authority, or whatever the excuse is, those concerned must desist, and we must introduce legislation that addresses the issues—and the Bill is a necessary part of that.

I know—all the more because, happily, there is a cross-party approach to the Bill—that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) would tell us that the perpetrators simply need a bit more love and affection. He would say that they are much misunderstood, and if only we understood them more, everything would be so different, and that we should hug them or whatever—but I do not agree with that approach, either. However, to take one step back, I agree with the opening sentence of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—her point was repeated by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)—that we have to go a long way back along the chain and consider issues such as parenting, family breakdown and other factors that are the antecedents of antisocial behaviour, to try to address such matters. That is part of the Government’s comprehensive approach.

Many of my hon. Friends mentioned the respect agenda and what we are trying to do to tackle antisocial behaviour. That very much fits in with trying to take preventive measures, but we have heard some horrendous stories this morning about the ways in which people seek to impede and obstruct emergency workers. Some of the points that colleagues have made are entirely fair and were dealt with in Committee. Some have been answered, but some perhaps will need to be revisited. It was right and proper to try to define an emergency worker as narrowly as possible, but also to include the escape clause so that we can consider adding to the categories, if experience dictates that the list is not adequate. I understand what was said by many colleagues about social workers and people who, in the course of their routine day-to-day work, may not necessarily be construed as emergency workers, but who are often put in positions in which they solve or help to solve an emergency. Those people deserve to be covered by the Bill so that they are not obstructed while carrying out their work. Those matters can and should be considered.

As I said, the Bill was not intended to reinvent assault legislation in the context of public workers. We are doing that in many other ways. It has been pointed out that unlike Scotland, we have the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It already almost imposes a tariff for impeding people in the execution of public service, and we are considering in detail, with the council, other ways in which sentences can reflect the spirit and sentiment of the Bill. It is appropriate that many colleagues have put the wider issues of assault of public sector workers generally, and emergency workers specifically, in the context of the Bill, but the Bill does not try to do everything. Its narrow focus is appropriate.

It probably was inappropriate that the original Bill almost exactly reflected the Scottish provision, given that we do not start from the same legislative base. I shall say very carefully—and I shall not, as I was invited to, tease the House about what the Sentencing Guidelines Council may or may not say—that that is a matter that the Government should keep under review. Having set up the Sentencing Guidelines Council, we should let it do its work. If that achieves what we want with respect to the legislative base, that is more appropriately done in that way, although I reserve our right to return to the matter.

The Minister used the words “may” and “if” with reference to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Will he give a commitment that if there is not an increase in sentences over time, the Home Office will review the matter and consider whether assaults on emergency workers should be deemed to be aggravated?

That sounded terribly like one of those elephant traps that Liberal Democrats are always trying to get Ministers to fall into by giving cast-iron assurances. None the less, unusually, that is a fair paraphrase of what I said, and I will take it back to the Home Office. I think that means yes, in a convoluted way.

The Minister used the conditional “may” or “might”, yet the manifesto on which he fought the last general election—and, I concede, won it—says:

“we will introduce tougher sentences . . . for those convicted of assaulting workers serving the public.”

We have already had retreats by the Home Office this week on ID cards and on police mergers. Is this the third retreat this week?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect very much, for conceding the last election. That is terribly generous. He is being tedious. We already have people looking at how we can carry out that manifesto commitment. It is not a matter of whether we will do that—we will; it is a matter of how. We have established the Sentencing Guidelines Council, so it is appropriate in the first instance that it does the job with which it is charged. Then, as I tried to say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross)—in a convoluted way, I fully accept—we will examine the matter further if the Sentencing Guidelines Council route is not the appropriate one.

With the Sentencing Guidelines Council, there is already an implied tariff in place for those who obstruct public service workers. We need to build on that. We are considering, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge rightly suggests, other aspects such as sentencing for firearms and knife offences, and the wider context of assaults on public sector workers, rather than the narrow confines of obstruction of emergency workers. That commitment remains absolute.

When the hon. Member for Surrey Heath speaks of retreats of this sort or that sort, both of which are fiction, he is introducing an unnecessary and poisonous veneer of partisanship into our deliberations, which he should be ashamed of. I agree with his starting point. We need to fill the gap and add a deterrent or exhortatory value to the law. I agree with his point about the double impact of interference in the discharge of emergency workers’ duty and the potential damage done by that obstruction—for example, when the pipes used by firemen are cut.

I absolutely commend what the Father of the House has done with regard to the Bill. To hon. Members who have criticised the extent of the Bill, I say that it elegantly fills a gap that needs filling. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have discussed the wider issues, and we will examine those points and report back to the House. The House is about to give the Bill a fair wind, and I hope that it receives a fair wind in the other place too, in which case the Father of the House will be able to add it to his many other significant contributions in his long and enduring time in this place.

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. It has gone on longer than I anticipated, and there is another important debate to come. I therefore hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I do not go through all the excellent speeches that have been made. All the speeches have been positive, and there has been unanimity on both sides of the House in our support not for the Bill, but for the work done by emergency workers, which should be satisfying for those workers.

I want to make two points about the debate. First, it has emerged that hon. Members are deeply afraid that with increasing attacks on emergency workers, as well as interference in their work, we may end up with no-go areas in parts of some towns. Secondly, hon. Members are deeply conscious that sanctions alone are not enough, and that education, training and understanding must form part of the programme.

It would be invidious to pick out one speech, but I shall pick out one comment, which I commend to the House as the quote of the day: my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) intervened to suggest, “Hug a firefighter”. I am not sure whether that would create a sense of neglect among the other services—but I do worry that our poor firemen will be afraid to go out in daylight.

I thank everyone for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.