New Clause 3 - Offences against ‘public servants’
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
8:30 pm
James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)
The three new clauses in my name together create an offence of violence against a public servant and make it an aggravated offence, which attracts a higher maximum sentence than would otherwise be the case.
My starting point is that all offences of violence are a serious matter, but offences of violence committed against a public servant are particularly serious for the reasons that I shall outline. There are a number of factors that establish why that is the case. First, in many cases the public servant will be fulfilling a duty in the service that he or she provides to the public, and in some cases will be fulfilling a duty as a member of the emergency services—for example, in the case of fire or ambulance services—in very serious situations. In many instances the public servant will be in a particularly vulnerable situation doing his or her duty.
In all cases involving a public servant, he or she is providing a service to the public, and to attack the public servant is to attack the public service itself; that is, to interfere with or disrupt the service and cause loss and disruption to the public as a whole and in some cases even put the public in danger.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that a person who attacks a nurse is committing a particularly despicable act, but it is not just a despicable act against that nurse. The assailant is also disrupting a vital public service, perhaps taking out of public service someone who would otherwise have been able to give extra care and attention to other members of the public, who may go without that expert care and attention because of the antisocial actions of the assailant.
The Committee will know that attacks against public servants are sadly all too frequent and, in a number of cases, they are on the increase. For some antisocial members of our society, no depths are too low and no irresponsibility is too wanton. I can perhaps best illustrate that with a local example from my constituency, which also involves the topical issue of air weapons. Earlier this year, the fire service in my constituency, which does a first-class job—as fire services do in all constituencies—was called out as an emergency service to attend a potentially dangerous and malfunctioning shop sign in the main street. A male officer investigating the situation was shot in the forehead with an air pellet. Happily, the injuries that he sustained were not serious, but it does not take great imagination to realise that they could have been. It was good fortune that he did not suffer serious injuries.
Fire officers who turn out to deal with incidents face enough risks without additional hazards. I am sad to say that it is not unusual for fire officers to suffer such hazards. It is happening up and down the country. According to a written answer that I received from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 22 June, there were hundreds of such attacks on firefighters last year. That is one example; I could no doubt find many others involving fine public servants who provide a service in our constituencies.