---

Emergency Workers (Protection) Bill

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, as that was going to be my next point. Not having a comprehensive knowledge or understanding of all the legislation on the statute books, I want to hear more about whether existing law allows the offence of impeding to be covered, or whether we need an additional law. Of course, the way in which the impeding is done has a large bearing on this. I would be surprised, for example, if the act of putting a large missile across a road to prevent access by a fire tender was not covered by existing law. Impeding could take a wide range of forms, and I am sure that people might find imaginative ways of doing it. Do we need a separate law simply to cover a loophole in relation to impeding emergency workers attending accident scenes? My other caveat is about where we draw the line. Who is an ““emergency worker””? Were the law extended to include ambulance and fire crews, should it also include nurses and doctors in accident and emergency wards, who, as we know, have to deal with violent and unpleasant people, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights when there has been a lot of binge drinking? Should we include council workers on the council tax desk, in the emergency housing service or in the reception area of a town hall, where people get extremely angry? The hapless council worker who cannot resolve such people’s problems is in the front line and often subject to attacks. Should we include social workers who attend people’s homes in difficult circumstances, who could be open to violence, insults and attacks? Should we include teachers in schools? Should we include MPs in their surgeries? How far will we let the legislation extend? I want to be convinced on two points. First, does the law as it stand cover all those eventualities, including the offence of impeding emergency services attending accident scenes?