I am afraid that the noble Lord appears to have missed the point of principle that I made before making what he characterises as a lame excuse, but which I thought was in fact rather a good point. The point of principle is that we have a definition of “emergency worker”, which Parliament accepted back in 2018. It is a good working definition, and we shall stick with it; that is a point of principle. The point on this amendment was that it goes too far because it has those unintended consequences. The noble Lord should not lose sight of my first point by concentrating only on the second, which he regards as lame and which I regard, from a legal perspective, as quite a nice point—I do urge upon him the point of principle as well.
I was coming to the point that we value prison officers. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, laid down the gauntlet and asked that we do so from the Dispatch Box. Of course we do. Our position on this amendment has nothing to do with not valuing prison officers or the work that anybody does in prison.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked what we were doing to protect prison staff. Those who carry out corresponding functions to prison officers and prison custody officers are already included in the definition of an emergency worker. Offences against those people will be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines. That is what I wanted to say in response to that amendment.
6.30 pm
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which seeks to place in statute a requirement on the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to prepare and publish a sentencing
guideline for this offence. The position here—and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—is that the independent Sentencing Council has recently issued updated, definitive guidelines for a number of assault offences, including the offence of common assault. The guidelines came into effect on 1 July this year. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, say that he had not seen that. The position is this, and I have had it checked: what came out is that it is in the general common assault guidelines. There is not a specific guideline for assaults on emergency workers, but those general guidelines deal with assaults on emergency workers. Perhaps I can have the relevant pages or document provided to the noble Lord if he has not yet seen them.
That document therefore contains, for the first time, specific guidance for courts to use when sentencing an offender for assaulting an emergency worker. It makes it clear to the court that an uplift to the sentence should be provided. Given that, I suggest that there is no practical purpose to this amendment. Of course, the Sentencing Council operates independently of government —I should make that clear—which is important for the independence of the courts. We can, I am sure, be confident that the council will give due consideration to the need to update the relevant guideline if Clause 2 is, in due course, accepted.
Turning to the points made about the increase in the sentence, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, the short point here is that deterrence is only one aspect of sentencing. One also has to consider punishment, public protection and the seriousness of the behaviour. We do not sentence only on the basis of deterrence, and this clause is certainly not—to pick up a phrase the noble Lord, Lord Beith, used—the Government rushing to have something to say. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we do not want to see higher sentences just for the sake of it. I welcome, if I may say respectfully, his realistic approach to this issue. We need to show that this is a really serious offence and will not be tolerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me a specific question that I will try to respond to. If I have not responded to all of it, I will come back to him. The information I have for how many have received a custodial sentence for assaulting an emergency worker is 1,533 in 2019 and 2,392 in 2020. There has also been an increase in the average length of sentences and we would expect that to increase further if the maximum sentence increases further. One must remember, however, that maximum sentences are for the most serious occurrence of the offence. Therefore, the fact that the maximum sentence is rarely or not used is not an indication that the maximum sentence is wrong. It might just be that there has not yet been an incidence that justifies the maximum sentence.
Finally, I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee to amend the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 to create a specific offence of potting, which would carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment on summary conviction, or two years following conviction on indictment. As we have heard, potting—for those familiar with the term only in the context of gardening—is, in this context, a rather more gruesome affair. It is usually
taken to mean the throwing of bodily fluids—we have used the euphemism “relevant substances”, but we know what we are talking about—at a person, usually police or prison officers, by prisoners or offenders while in prison or custody. That is disgusting behaviour; it simply will not and should not be tolerated.
We take the safety of prison officers very seriously. We have committed an extra £100 million to security and we have given them body-worn cameras, police-style restraints and various incapacitant sprays to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. However, the problem with this amendment is twofold. Let me first take the part of it which provides that, where the CPS decides that prosecution is not in the public interest, it has to notify the Lord Chancellor within 28 days. That proposal—I heard what the noble Earl said—is plainly designed to ensure a high probability of both prosecutions and convictions. However, there is, with respect, a point of principle here: prosecutions are independent of government. The CPS has to make its decisions independent of political pressure. A provision that the CPS has to inform the Lord Chancellor of a decision not to prosecute is concerning because it risks blurring that important divide between government and the decision to prosecute.
Turning to the obligation to ensure that sufficient suitable kit for collecting evidence is available in the Prison Service, I do not understand that at the moment there is a problem there, but I am happy to discuss the point further. We do not need, however, a separate criminal offence. All of this can be prosecuted and captured under existing offences, such as assault and battery and other offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 24 of which covers maliciously administering poison or noxious substances. In the 2019 case of R v Veysey, the Court of Appeal held that urine—if I may say that from the Dispatch Box—can, in these circumstances, be a noxious substance. It is important, however, that the trial court is able to look at the individual circumstances, any aggravating or mitigating factors, and then decide the appropriate sentence.
We have clear guidance in operation to ensure a consistent framework to deal with crime committed in prisons. I do not know whether my noble friend has seen the Crime in Prison Referral Agreement, published in May 2019. That makes it mandatory for any assault—except where there is little or no injury—including any instance of potting, to be referred to the police. The police will then look at the evidence and seek to charge the offender. When the matter does not go to court, it can be dealt with by an adjudication in prison, which can also add extra time in custody. In light of that, and for the reasons I hope I have explained clearly, the Government are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords who tabled these respective amendments not to press them.