Official Report 467KB pdf
I welcome members to the 27th meeting in 2010 of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. We have four items on today’s agenda. As far as I am aware, we have received no apologies. I am sure that Chris Harvie’s bus is on the way up from the Borders as we speak.
Thank you for inviting me along. No one in the room would disagree that workers who serve our communities should be able to go about their daily lives free from the threat of attack. It is entirely unacceptable for people who are the lifeblood of our communities, such as bus drivers, train drivers and shop staff, to suffer from assaults and threats. However, there is disagreement on the steps that should be taken to reduce the incidence of violence against public-facing workers. We do not think that we can view the problems of attacks on public-facing workers in isolation. Only by beginning to address the underlying causes of crime more generally will we reduce violent attacks on public-facing workers. The committee will have seen our memorandum on the bill, which outlines why we do not support it. I am happy to take members’ questions.
I beg members’ indulgence, as Hugh Henry, the member in charge of the bill, is with us but has to leave shortly to convene the Public Audit Committee. If members are content, I will allow Hugh Henry to ask his questions first.
Thank you for your indulgence, convener. I apologise for the discourtesy, but the Public Audit Committee has a witness coming in shortly.
That is the case.
Which groups are they?
The Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 was extended. However, that did not involve adding new workers, because that could not be done through secondary legislation. It involved moving certain categories of worker from one bit of the act to another bit, the effect of which was to provide them with protection whenever they are on duty rather than only when they are dealing with emergency circumstances. I cannot remember the exact list, but I think that the three categories were medical practitioners and nurses—
Nevertheless, you felt that it was important to extend the cover for those groups of workers—we can get the list later in the proceedings—so that they were covered not only in emergency situations.
That was the request of people working in the medical profession.
The Scottish Police Federation and the Law Society of Scotland said that there is no need for the emergency workers legislation because anyone who is assaulted is covered by common law in Scotland and that, since sentencing provisions were extended, the need for the 2005 act has been removed. However, rather than take that approach, you decided to alter the provisions of the legislation to extend cover to groups of workers in non-emergency situations. Why was that?
When I was in opposition, similar points were made about the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. However, Parliament, the Scottish National Party group and I took the view that emergency workers are distinct and different and that we should seek to protect them. When we came to power, we sought to ensure that the appropriate cover that had been sought was, in fact, provided.
Do you disagree with the Scottish Police Federation and the Law Society of Scotland, which said that there is no need for the 2005 act?
I disagreed with that position in 2004, when I supported the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. Emergency workers are a distinct group and it is entirely unacceptable that paramedics who are going about their difficult job should be subject to assault or abuse. It is appropriate that we record public opprobrium and that the courts ensure that the matter is dealt with in the way that is provided for.
However, you now think that it is important that some workers are covered in non-emergency situations.
No. I support the ethos of the approach to which Labour’s Lord Advocate referred. The changes that this Administration made were to ensure that cover is available for workers in appropriate situations, because there were areas of their work that were not covered.
I am not disputing what the Lord Advocate said at the time; my question relates more to the clarification that Philip Lamont provided. Mr Lamont will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he said that cover was extended to certain groups of workers when they are not in emergency situations.
Yes. The key point is that they are workers who deal with emergency situations in the course of their work. If they did not deal with emergency situations, they would not be covered by the 2005 act in the first place. Their place in the 2005 act was changed.
Yes—and the effect is that they are covered in non-emergency situations.
Yes. A modification order amended section 1 of the 2005 act so that medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives have the same status under the act as constables and fire brigade and Scottish Ambulance Service personnel, and are therefore covered whenever they are on duty. That reflects the fact that they are extremely likely to have to deal with emergency circumstances.
The cabinet secretary talked about what the Lord Advocate said in 2004. There is no disagreement between us on that, but the Lord Advocate was talking specifically about emergencies, whereas you are talking about groups of workers—doctors and nurses—being covered when there is no emergency. What is the difference between such a situation and one in which a social worker is taking a child into care in a stressful and potentially confrontational situation?
First, let us set out what the Government tweaked. We wanted to ensure that workers whom we decided to classify as emergency workers on duty were given protection, and there was a decision on the nature of workers’ employment back in 2004. If I were to have a heart attack now, for example, and Philip Lamont offered me some form of medical care, he would not be classified as a medical worker because he is not a medical worker; he would simply be a good citizen. We as a society have decided to classify individuals by the nature of their employment.
Yes, but you have accepted the principle that certain categories of workers who do specific types of jobs should be covered in non-emergency situations.
No. I said that the 2005 act covers people who are doing their job. There could be an assault, but that might not be in an emergency situation. A medical person can be on duty doing their daily job, but not in an emergency situation. The issue is not the emergency; it is the fact that they are within the category and on duty.
Can we clarify that? I think that what the cabinet secretary is saying is slightly different from what Mr Lamont said. Mr Lamont said categorically on the record that certain groups of workers are covered in non-emergency situations, but when I asked the cabinet secretary about that, he said no. He then said something about the classification of workers. I do not doubt that a doctor or a nurse helps in emergencies, but I am talking about the 2005 act potentially covering them in situations in which they are not engaged in an emergency. Is that the case?
There are two factors. First, section 1 of the 2005 act provides protection for constables and fire brigade and Scottish Ambulance Service personnel whenever they are on duty. The modification order that Parliament approved in early 2008 added registered medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives to the list and removed them from section 2. Section 2 provides protection for prison officers, coastguards, social workers when they are dealing with child protection cases, and mental health officers, but only when they are dealing with emergency circumstances. Therefore, there are two categories of people. There are those who are provided with protection when they are on duty: constables and fire brigade and Scottish Ambulance Service personnel. That started with Lord Boyd. We added to that list medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives. In addition, prison officers, coastguards, social workers and mental health officers, because of the nature of their jobs, are provided with protection in emergency circumstances, whether while taking a child into care or while tending somebody who may be detained and sectioned under mental health legislation.
The point is that a doctor who is assaulted by a patient would be covered by the 2005 act even though that assault did not take place in an emergency situation. Is that correct?
Yes, because the person is classified as a doctor on duty.
That is the point at which I am driving.
If the person is on holiday on the beach on the east neuk of Fife, they will not be considered a doctor on duty. However, if they are on duty at work, they will be covered by the 2005 act.
Of course, but reducing the arguments to the absurd does not help either of us. We are talking about people who, in the course of their employment, are classified in a certain way. You have confirmed that workers such as doctors and nurses are covered by the 2005 act in non-emergency situations simply by dint of their profession.
That was always the case. The position was established in 2004 and its logic was narrated by the Labour Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd. I have read out what he stated in Parliament. If you wish me to repeat it, I will do so. He expounded clearly why emergency workers’ positions were distinct.
I do not dispute the logic of the argument and do not criticise the cabinet secretary for it. I am merely trying to establish that he has accepted that the provisions of the 2005 act have been extended to cover certain groups of workers when they are dealing with members of the public in non-emergency situations.
Parliament agreed to that when it passed the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill.
Which you support.
Yes. I have said that.
One argument that was made in favour of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill when it was introduced and that is being made in favour of the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill is that the legislation will act as a deterrent. I understand that when the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill was introduced, the penalties that were available under the common law were less than those for which the statute provided. Am I correct in saying that that is no longer the case?
Yes. That is true if a case is charged at summary level and not on indictment.
The deterrent aspect of the 2005 act was the greater penalties that were available under the statute, as opposed to the common law offence, but the penalties under the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill are the same as the current penalties under common law. Do you consider that the deterrent effect that was intended by the 2005 act is no longer relevant?
There is a variety of issues. The previous Administration, in which the convener served, correctly introduced the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill partly because it was appropriate that we should record such offences in order that those offences, rather than breaches of the peace or assaults, would appear in previous conviction lists. There was and remains a clear problem in that area. If we broaden the legislation, we will reduce its effectiveness.
I want to look at the issue from a slightly different angle. When the committee scrutinises the general principles of any bill, it must consider whether there is a need for the legislation. Given that the proposed penalties in the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill are the same as those that are available under common law, and given that there is a dearth of evidence on whether the 2005 act has acted as a deterrent—the committee has tried to establish that, but it is difficult to do so—is there any need for the bill?
That goes back to what I said at the outset. Is there an issue here? Yes, there is. Someone who is going about their lawful business in working as a train driver, a bus conductor or a shop assistant should not have to put up with foul-mouthed abuse, whether or not it is alcohol fuelled, and should certainly not be assaulted. The question is whether the situation would be resolved by a law. My answer is that it would not. The bill would not change the law in any way; it would simply place in statute the law that currently exists under common law. It would not make the law any tougher or achieve anything—indeed, it might devalue the benefit of what was introduced in the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005. We all accept that there is an issue, and Mr Henry is right to flag it up. However, changing the law through his bill would not improve the law at all; it would just make such behaviour a statutory offence as opposed to a common-law offence.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. It has been led to us that there is a feeling that abuse—which is a kind of assault—is not treated as seriously as assault, despite the fact that it might be the sort of thing that people who work on trains and so on experience on the weekend shifts, as was suggested by a ScotRail witness last week. The descriptions in various police forces of what constitutes a minor assault of an emergency worker are beginning to be rolled out across the country. Do you think that more knowledge about the number of complaints that lead to a charge relating to abuse would strengthen our hand in getting the prosecution services to take instances of abuse more seriously?
The Crown Office would argue that it takes such instances seriously. There have been some recorded incidents to which I could refer—they have probably been made available to you by the Crown Office anecdotally—for which severe sentences have correctly been handed down by the court. As you say, it is not always about serious assault; it can be about disrespect or ignorant and loutish behaviour, which is entirely unacceptable. In Scotland, such behaviour tends to go hand in hand with alcohol overconsumption and is not restricted to Fridays and Saturdays. Would more information be beneficial? It might be, but, drilling down, it might sometimes be hard to get that. What is quite clear, though, is the link between alcohol and offending at that level. Although it is not serious assault, it would be wrong to classify it as low-level offending. It is unacceptable and, whether it is against a male or female, it can be extremely frightening and distressing.
I hear your comprehensive response. Do you think that when people are talking about a minor assault of an emergency worker, there should be some reference to alcohol, so that we show directly in figures the number of people who are aggravating their behaviour through alcohol? Would that help?
I can understand why that might be helpful. These things are always about striking a balance between not having a bureaucratic burden and how much information we have to recall. It would be fair to say that when such people are prosecuted, their police report will almost invariably say that the accused was drunk when he did this or that. That information will be available and the procurator fiscal will doubtless lead it. What we as a Parliament have managed to close down is the suggestion that the defence agent will stand up and say, “He’s a swell guy who is normally really nice and it was just the drink that did it to him last night.” That excuse has gone.
I want to take you back to the question of how the proposed bill relates to the 2005 act. Let me take you through what I understand the position to be and you can tell us whether you agree.
With the caveat that for some of those positions, such as social workers, it depends on the nature of the work that they are doing. The act refers to social workers who work with children, not social workers per se. So, a social worker dealing with care for the elderly for example, who might be assaulted by a patient suffering from dementia, is not covered. However, a social worker dealing with the case that Mr Henry narrated is covered. Equally, mental health officers per se are not covered, but mental health officers in certain situations are covered. There is a drilling down. Although Lewis Macdonald is correct that some categories are fully protected under section 1, other categories are more focused.
Thank you for that clarification. The Scottish Government decided to move some of those groups—the doctors, nurses and midwives—from section 2 cover to section 1 cover.
Yes. There was a significant representation from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing that referred to the fact that those staff wear uniform and the nature of their job. We fully accepted that.
You accepted their representations. Did you have representations from any other groups of workers who were covered, but wanted to be covered by section 1 of the act, or from groups who were not covered at all and wanted to be covered?
That I cannot recall. I can happily investigate and reply to you, but I cannot say off the top of my head.
It would be helpful to have that clarification if that is possible.
I would have looked at the facts and circumstances. The society in which we live ebbs and flows, which is why we listened to representations and expanded on what was passed in 2004. New situations come about. An example of that is the UK Border Agency. We now have officers walking around who look like policemen. At some stage, they might well say that they are victims of this or that. I would look at the facts and circumstances at the time.
You made a judgment in government. From what you have said, the judgment was based not simply on the representations that you received from the medical, nursing and midwife professions. As you have described, you considered each case on its merits. You considered the case that those professions made to you for being included in section 1 of the 2005 act rather than section 2 and you decided that they were right to argue that they should be afforded the additional protection from section 1.
We followed the 2005 act. Apologies, convener, but I think that 2004 was when Colin Boyd, the then Lord Advocate, spoke about the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. We followed section 8 of the 2005 act, which was introduced by the Labour-Liberal Administration and supported by the SNP, although I cannot remember whether the support was uniform throughout the Parliament. Section 8(2) of the 2005 act states:
That is clear. The categories that are covered by section 2 could not be added to other than with additional groups of emergency-related workers. However, for example, if a case was made to you in relation to social workers, who currently are covered by section 2 when they deal with emergencies in relation to child protection, you could by order add them to section 1 if you were persuaded that that was appropriate.
That is a fair assessment.
You mentioned other groups of social work staff, for example those who may be subject to the fear of violence when providing care for persons with dementia. Would it, in your view, be possible that ministers could determine that those social workers were dealing with an issue of an emergency nature and bring them within the scope of the existing legislation?
Clearly, an argument could be made, but I have to say that I would take a lot of persuading. I appreciate that there can be instances when those suffering from dementia can strike out and be violent, but I tend to think that the circumstances to which the legislation refers are much more fraught than that. A legal argument could be made for bringing such cases within the scope of the legislation, but would it be one that would persuade me or, indeed, the Parliament? I am probably sceptical, much as I am sympathetic to those who work in that environment, because at the end of the day we all recognise the difficulties.
Finally, I take you back to a comment that you made at the outset, which is that part of the point of the existing legislation was to record public opprobrium and ensure that the courts did the same. If you are not willing to support the bill that Hugh Henry has introduced, is there any other method that you would support for recording public opprobrium in relation to assaults on non-emergency, public-facing workers?
That is a matter for the Crown and it is why we have aggravations within the law. It can be made clear that you shouted abuse at X in the course of whatever it was that they were doing and, if need be, that you did so under the influence of alcohol. That can be recorded within the common law. We have made it clear as a Parliament that we are not prepared to tolerate alcohol as an excuse. Thereafter, rather than simply record that, I would expect the courts to do their duty, which is to enforce severely that we are not, as a society, prepared to tolerate rude, ignorant and disrespectful behaviour. The respect agenda is not supposed simply to be at governmental level; it is supposed to be across our society and communities. We are not prepared to put up with it and we encourage the courts to act appropriately.
A number of witnesses have put forward the public policy argument as one reason for the bill. They have said that it sends out a message to those who work on the front line that such behaviour will not be tolerated, that it might encourage them to report incidents—there is a suggestion that a lot of incidents are not reported because of a feeling of helplessness—and that at the same time it would send out a message to deter those who might engage in such behaviour. What is your analysis of that argument, which the unions and others have put forward?
I think that, again, it is a matter of each and every one of us ensuring that we drive home the message that there must be a culture change and that we are not prepared to tolerate such behaviour. For example, you and I both travel regularly on Lothian Buses. Lothian Buses makes it clear in signs that are visible for all to see that their drivers and staff are not expected to put up with abuse. Employers have a clear duty to make it clear that their employees will not have to put up with drunken behaviour, whether they are serving in a shop or driving a bus. It is important thereafter that the police take such incidents seriously—they do—and that the Crown prosecutes appropriately, drawing all the aggravated factors to the attention of the court, and that the court acts appropriately.
You say that employers are taking that message on board. I concur with you in regard to the attempts that Lothian Buses is making to address the issue. Unions and many others in the public sphere are pushing the message hard, but there is still an issue, as I think that you said that you accepted. Everyone is doing what you have suggested. You say that the police and the Crown Office are taking the matter seriously, too, but there is still an issue. The committee was told in evidence that last year front-line workers were subject to in the region of 30,000 incidents, and that was the evidence of just one union, which did not cover a variety of other professions.
Two things spring to mind. First, there needs to be a culture change—people must recognise that such behaviour is just unacceptable. Following on from that, those who have the statutory powers and responsibilities require to act and the police require to visibly enforce them. As a Government, we have ensured that we have record numbers of police officers. The prosecution authorities require to drive home the message in the courts. We must ensure that those who have the statutory duties and responsibilities act accordingly. The Crown has been in touch with the committee, and I think that it has made it clear that it takes the issue extremely seriously. The police have done the same and I support them in that.
I am sure that you are right about that. Could a bill such as the one that we are considering play a part in bringing about a change of culture?
A bill that was more tightly focused could. I think that the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill is in danger of undermining the benefits of the 2005 act. Lewis Macdonald asked whether we could extend the provisions of the 2005 act. Yes, of course we could, but my one worry about the bill is that we might extend provisions to such a point that only a small minority of people would not be covered, and that would undermine the focusing and targeting that I referred to when I mentioned the position of Lord Boyd back in 2004.
One of the other points that you made was that the Crown would argue that it takes such incidents seriously. Does it?
Yes, it does. To be fair to the Lord Advocate, I know how much she and the Solicitor General for Scotland are exercised by such matters. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and someone who spent 20 years as a defence agent, I have to say that the Crown does take such incidents seriously. The Crown will make quite clear the circumstances of the case, because the court would want them to be brought to its attention. Was the accused under the influence of alcohol? What was the nature of the offence? It would be brought home that the victim was driving a taxi, working in a shop or going about their lawful business as a bus driver when the accused came up and did whatever.
The difficulty that we have is that even though the Crown Office and you say that such behaviour is treated extremely seriously and is unacceptable, we have evidence to the contrary from unions and workers. One worker gave us details of what happened to him. A number of organisations have told us that these incidents are not taken seriously at all and many of their people simply do not bother to report them any more, because they do not think that there is any point. Do you have empirical data or evidence to support your assertions that such incidents are treated seriously?
No. Such data are collated by the Crown, which, to be fair to it, can act only on what is brought to its attention. That normally happens by way of a police report and, on matters of police reporting, you will need to take evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. All I can say is that, from my experience with and knowledge of the police and the instructions that they get from the Crown, such incidents must be collated and reported. We can make inquiries with the Crown and the police for you, if you so wish, but my understanding is that they are taken seriously and acted on. It is a matter of regret to the police and the Crown when such incidents are not reported, even if, because of a lack of witnesses or whatever else, a prosecution might not have been pursued. I certainly know that the police would rather that the matter was reported because they can begin to work out a pattern or identify the offender as, say, the person who has been doing the same thing to other individuals on previous nights. As I say, I am more than happy to go back to the Crown and police on this issue but, as Mr Gibson has correctly pointed out, there comes a point at which you have to wonder what you can do with such information.
The information is quite important, because a clear distinction has been drawn here. On the one hand, one group is saying that many of the 30,000 incidents that take place are not taken seriously, while, on the other hand, you and the Crown are saying that they are. Both positions cannot be right—they are clearly contradictory—so if you can make the inquiries that you have referred to and get us the information, that would be a huge help.
I am happy to ask the Crown and the police about the information that they can provide on incidents of which they have knowledge that fall within the bill’s domain.
I think that there is common ground on some issues. For example, we agree that certain occupations are a magnet for these difficulties, that some of those occupations are covered by existing legislation and that other occupations—such as train guards, taxi drivers and bus drivers—that also act as a magnet are not covered. However, you have argued that the danger of extending current legislation to cover the other magnet occupations, or of introducing new legislation to extend that reach, is that only a handful of occupations would be left uncovered, and that the bill’s essential weakness is that it is too wide and deep and includes everyone.
I am giving evidence not on my bill—a Government bill—but on Mr Henry’s bill. I accept that the Government has certain obligations, but usually it is the proponent of the bill who states how matters stand. I suppose that it all depends on whether you accept Mr Henry’s proposal or certain submissions suggesting that the legislation be extended to the self-employed. If the committee is minded to accept that extension, it will have to accept the subsequent and significant deepening and widening of the provisions. I cannot answer your question without knowing just what the proponent of the bill is targeting.
You asserted this morning that a shortcoming of the bill was that only a handful of occupations would be left uncovered. Given that that argument does not feature in the Government’s submission on the pros and cons of the bill, do you have any evidence to back it up?
My assertion is based upon what Mr Henry and you have said, and the evidence that has been submitted to the committee. Evidence has been given that the provisions should be extended to include the self-employed. In your two questions, you mentioned bus drivers, train drivers, shop assistants and taxi drivers—where is the line to be drawn? It is not for the Government to draw that line in a bill that does not belong to it. If you accept the logic of the evidence that has been submitted by those who support the bill, I suggest that it is fair to hypothesise that we have probably included a significant majority of the working population of Scotland.
The Government has been helpful in providing information so far. The bill provides a definition. The Government is well placed to provide some estimate of how many people it believes would be covered by the definition and that would aid the committee in its deliberations. It is, of course, up to the Government to decide whether it wishes to assist the committee by providing the figure for how many people it feels would be covered by the definition. I leave it on the table as a piece of information that would be helpful to the committee as we pursue the bill, and perhaps the Government can reflect and come back to us.
I am happy to provide that information, but the committee will have to tell me whether it wants me to include the self-employed, just those who are mentioned in the bill, or people more widely than just those in the bill. For the Government to be able to answer Ms Alexander’s question, it would require to be formulated in a legitimate way.
Cabinet secretary, we can take evidence only on what is in the bill. Obviously if you want to respond to any of the evidence that the committee has received, that is a matter for you. If we consider amendments to the bill at stage 2, and you want to bring forward supplementary evidence at that stage, we will be happy to see it, but at the moment, we want information that is specifically related to what is in the bill. It is entirely up to the Government if it wants to provide any additional information.
We will happily do what we can to provide information about the number of the working population of Scotland that will be covered.
The bill is about the protection of workers, but the definition of worker is quite varied, to be honest. As I read the bill, a chief executive who does not own a company but is employed, a marketing manager, or anyone who is involved in a company at a senior level would be protected if they were involved in some kind of public consultation with the community, whereas the people who work for them, such as on the shop floor of a shipyard or an engineering works, would not be covered by the bill. Is that fair?
That is my understanding of the bill. Section 1(3) defines a worker as
I raised the point with a panel that was before the committee a couple of weeks ago. The bill would not be so much about creating a two-tier system as a three-tier system. We already have the emergency workers legislation, and the proposed legislation would bring in protection for many people within society, including senior management, but not workers in factories, who would not be covered. It would be understandable if those who work in factories or shipyards, and so on, felt left out.
That is a reasonable interpretation.
I have another quick question. The bill suggests that certain evidence could be uncorroborated. Is that a laudable aim, or would it create more difficulties?
That is fundamentally a matter for the Crown. It would certainly be a significant change from what is normally viewed as necessary in Scotland, but we are coming into uncharted waters with the case of Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate. However, the provisions in the bill do not reflect what would normally be required in terms of corroborated evidence.
Thank you.
Briefly, Chris Harvie—I am sorry but we are very short on time.
One point that has not been raised is the protection of the front-line worker from his own management. I have just received a letter from a lady who, along with 50 or 60 other people, had to stand all the way from Markinch to Edinburgh on a train that was supposed to be five carriages but turned out to be three. There was a very nonchalant response from the general manager at ScotRail, but let us imagine the position of the staff, who were caught in the situation in which they found it impossible to check tickets or move people on the train.
I have a great deal of sympathy for staff in those situations. Primarily, it would be a matter for health and safety at work legislation, which is obviously reserved to Westminster, although we would expect it to be the first port of call to ensure that those who are doing their daily job are not put in a situation that is damaging to them, either through the circumstances or because of the people they might meet. Equally, there is employment legislation about ensuring that people have a right of recourse and redress. Fundamentally, it is a point of health and safety rather than the criminal law. As with all these things there are interpretations and grey areas, but it is a matter of health and safety at work.
I am aware that you need to get away, cabinet secretary, but I want to ask briefly about the verbal abuse of workers, which has been raised by a number of people in evidence. Do you think that Hugh Henry’s bill covers verbal abuse and, if not, do you think that the provisions on threatening and abusive behaviour that are brought into force today under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 would cover that?
You would probably be better to ask for a proper legal opinion. Our view is that Hugh Henry’s bill is driven towards dealing with assault. Can an assault be non-physical? You would probably find that the Crown will argue that there are circumstances in which that can be the case—if somebody is up in your face, almost spitting or whatever. However, I would hazard a guess that that definition would not cover some of the abuse that is generated at a bus driver as somebody jumps on or off the bus and which is unpleasant and sometimes threatening and intimidating.
The other question was whether the provisions on threatening and abusive behaviour in section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which were referred to in news reports this morning, would cover non-physical threatening behaviour.
Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 was brought in to cover domestic violence and its provisions are meant for different circumstances. I would have thought that the common law of breach of the peace would cover non-physical abuse. There are some circumstances that would not necessarily be covered by the bill. Mr McMillan referred to somebody who works in the back office, where there is limited public contact, whereas the definition in Mr Henry’s bill relates to public-facing workers. I think that dealing with verbal abuse would be about better enforcement of breach of the peace.
Thank you for coming in, cabinet secretary. I appreciate that the timing was inconvenient because of our change of plans.
Previous
Attendance