Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Official Report 778KB pdf

---

Respect for Shopworkers Week

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-07924, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on respect for shopworkers week, 13 to 19 November. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes that Respect for Shopworkers Week, which is organised by USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, runs from 13 to 19 November 2017; further notes that the week highlights the violence and abuse faced by shopworkers; recognises that the Retail Crime Survey, published in February 2017, concluded that “retail staff continue to suffer unacceptable levels of violence and abuse”, rising by 40% since 2015-16; is concerned that alcohol sales and the legal requirement of the Challenge 25 scheme can often act as a trigger-point for the outbreak of violence or abuse against workers, and considers that the abuse experienced by simply doing their job is of continued distress to shopworkers; celebrates the week’s vital role in raising awareness of the violence and abuse faced by shopworkers, and notes calls on both the Scottish and UK governments to act so that all public-facing workers can benefit from further protection from violence, abuse, and threats when at work.

17:03  

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a director of and shareholder in a company with retail interests in Edinburgh city centre, and I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which is the shopworkers union. That is not so much a declaration of interests as a statement of commitment—or even a call to arms. I think that retail is a hugely important industry, and I make no apologies for being an advocate for it.

Retail is the largest private sector employer in Scotland and is worth around 10 per cent of the economy. I would go so far as to say that it is the very interface of the economy: it is where people take their hard-earned pounds and exchange them, and that money flows around the economy again. However, the retail industry is all too often dismissed as an industry of low pay and low skill. That does not do it justice at all. For me, retail is about work, and that work is about people. It is not just about selling stuff; it is about people providing goods and services, and providing a point of contact.

More important, retail work is often people’s first job. I am sure that I am not the only member who was introduced to the world of work by working in retail. Increasingly, it is also becoming a job that people take in retirement, so it is people’s first job and their last job. Above all else, the retail industry provides opportunity. It is one of the last remaining industries where people can genuinely start on the shop floor and work their way to the top.

For all those positives, however, there are also some serious issues that concern the world of retail. I know from personal experience that confronting people is stressful. When I was a shopkeeper, one of the most difficult things was having to eject from my shop people whom we suspected of shoplifting. There was that moment when my heart was pounding and I was unsure of what I was going to say and what the person would do—what they would say to me and what they might do to me when I asked them to leave. Nothing ever happened, but I always felt that it was important that I took that on in order to protect my staff.

For too many people who work in retail, that is exactly the sort of situation that results in abuse and violence. The shopworkers union USDAW estimates that, across the UK, about half of our shopworkers regularly receive verbal abuse, about 6,000 retail workers are abused each week and 200 are assaulted each day. Those numbers are backed up by the employers organisations. The Scottish Grocers Federation estimates that about a third of its convenience store staff regularly suffer violence, and the British Retail Consortium estimates that retail crime has increased by 40 per cent in the past year.

There are real human impacts. Those situations lead to stress for the workers involved, which leads to depression, mental health issues and some people being unable to work. It is fundamental to the nature of retail work that shopworkers are exposed to the public. They have no option but to keep putting themselves in the same position, where they are exposed to risk. Other people might encounter an incident as they walk down the street or through the park, but they can avoid situations and certain places. If such incidents happen in people’s place of work, they have no option but to keep going back to the place where they have experienced those issues and incidents.

That is why USDAW’s respect week and freedom from fear campaign are so important. They allow us to show the consensus between trade unions and industry, but fundamentally they are about the real human cost of violence and abuse in the retail environment. Ultimately, violence and abuse at work are unacceptable. It does not matter where or in what context people work. Whether they work in an office or in a shop, violence and abuse should never be just part of the job.

What needs to happen? First, we need a change in culture. It is part of a pattern where, all too often, people see denial of sale or denial of service as something that they can respond to with abuse. They think that someone who is wearing a work uniform or a name badge is no longer a human being but is someone whom they can direct their anger and rage at. We have to call an end to that behaviour.

We must call on retailers to play their part. There must be zero tolerance of such incidents and behaviour in the working environment. Retailers must have adequate security and invest in protection, and they must afford staff the training that they need in order to deal with such situations. I note that most retailers take those duties seriously.

We must also call on the police and procurators fiscal to make sure that such crimes are treated as a priority and that they result in prosecution. One of the other startling statistics that USDAW has provided is that 32 per cent of shopworkers who suffer from abuse and violence are simply not reporting it. The incidents have become normalised and just part of what they have to deal with.

That brings me to us in the Parliament. We must challenge whether the law is working to protect retail workers from these unacceptable incidents. That is why I am pleased that, in the coming weeks, I will bring forward a consultation on a proposal for a bill on the matter. It is clear to me that there is a growing problem, that such incidents are escalating and that the law and the way it is enforced are simply not working for too many people who work in retail. I will seek to consult on how we can provide adequate legal protection, make sure that retail workers do not have to suffer from violence and make it very clear that such incidents are unacceptable and, in fact, unlawful.

We also need to consider why incidents occur, looking at the trigger points and the things that cause such situations to arise, which are partly around shopworkers’ legal obligations. Challenge 25 is an obligation on individual workers, not their employers. It is the individual workers who are required to uphold the law on proof of identification and proof of age, and it is the individual workers who will be prosecuted if they fail to do so. We are asking people to uphold the law—workers are legally obliged to do so—but in a way that often causes conflict and leads to situations that cause abuse and violence. My bill will seek to provide a clear line, so that it would be unlawful to impede someone who is upholding the challenge 25 principle, thereby breaking that chain of events and providing a clear and early threshold at which a crime has been committed.

I ask all members taking part in today’s debate to take seriously the issues of violence against retail workers and abuse of retail workers. I call on them to look at my consultation and I ask for their support and input. Above all else, I ask members to support both USDAW’s freedom from fear campaign and respect for shopworkers week, which is coming up next week.

17:10  

I thank Daniel Johnson for the opportunity to discuss this subject tonight. He has referred to the bill that he proposes to introduce, and a members’ debate is often a useful way of introducing the subject of a prospective member’s bill to Parliament and to ramp up discussion about it. I shall look with interest at the proposals that he seeks to introduce. I certainly support the principles that he has described, although I do not yet know whether I will ultimately be able to support the detailed implementation of his bill.

That is noises off; what is important and central to the debate is those who are on the front line of retail, who meet the public in all their diverse forms, from the old man—the regular—who goes to the convenience shop on the corner and builds a personal relationship with the shop staff at one end of the spectrum to those who cause serious incidents at the other.

This morning, as I travelled to Edinburgh by train, I read in the Metro a timely but unfortunate article about a shopworker who was attacked on Sunday in East Ayrshire and who is now, the paper reports, critically ill in hospital. That illustrates precisely the problems that Daniel Johnson asks us to engage with today, and which USDAW is making a more general point about on behalf of all retail workers. In the most stark way, that story illustrates the nature of the problem. It is too common and it has to be dealt with. We will assess whether legal protections of the nature of those that are to be proposed will help.

Respect for shopworkers week is an easy and proper thing to support. Without retail, we would be impoverished in many ways. It is important as one of our biggest industries, but it is also a personal industry that delivers to us. Too often, the police are called to incidents that happen in shops, particularly in relatively small shops. In larger shops, it is perhaps easier for those who are of ill intent to be observed, and they know it, so it is the little corner shop that is open at 10 o’clock at night or at 6 o’clock in the morning that is most commonly on the front line.

USDAW forms an important backstop to support people who have been subjected to unacceptable behaviour, and shopworkers deserve our support for what they do. It is not part of the job spec of someone who stands behind a counter that they should take whatever comes in their direction. They should have respect from all those who visit shops, and good citizens should look out for shopworkers and should be part of a society that protects them from those who do not show the right attitude. I certainly hope that the person who was attacked in East Ayrshire recovers and is able to resume her work, if she wishes to do so.

There are many parts of society where people face the public in all its multifarious forms. Shopworkers are important. On another occasion, we might think about others who have to engage with the public in sometimes difficult circumstances.

I am happy to support the motion.

17:15  

I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver a speech in the debate. I pay tribute to Daniel Johnson and congratulate him on bringing this members’ business debate to the chamber.

Retail is the lifeblood of our economy and gives opportunities and service to individuals and organisations across our economy. As we have heard, next week the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers will launch its annual respect for shopworkers week. This year, the theme will be “Keep your cool”. We should all consider doing that, whatever job we are in.

On-going research continues to reveal that another shopworker is verbally abused, threatened with violence or physically attacked every minute of the working day. That cannot continue. We must do all that we can to stamp out that vile behaviour. The retail crime survey, which was published in February, showed that staff continue to be abused and indicated an increase of around 40 per cent in such abuse since 2015-16.

We can easily point to alcohol sales as the catalyst for many of those incidents. There is an element of that, but it is not everything. Identifying individuals who wish to purchase alcohol can sometimes cause difficulty, and shopworkers and managers have to deal with challenge 25. However, in my lengthy retail experience, such abusive behaviour is not an attribute merely of grocery or the off-trade; any individual who faces the public and customers can be abused.

We must also think of the dramatic consumer programmes that sometimes give us the wrong impression by showing customers at airports, at motor traders or in high streets shouting and abusing individuals on camera. In the main, such programmes exist to educate but, at times, they give the wrong impression that shopworkers are easy prey and individuals can take such opportunities. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.

Many employers exploit individuals who work in shops. That must be considered. Some business owners often have their staff working lengthy hours without the cover and breaks that they require, and some individuals feel unable to stand up and challenge their working situation because they may be dismissed or replaced. That, too, is not acceptable.

After finishing university, I had the opportunity to work my way through the ranks in retail. Having been a shopworker, I became a management trainee, moved on to being a store manager and then had my own shop. I have also been in different elements of the sector.

It is vital that we examine all that we do to ensure that staff are given good opportunities to develop their skills. However, it is also important that we understand that some shop proprietors think that the best way to train their staff is to let individuals work on the shop floor and witness what happens. They allow that to take place because they see it as some sort of experience, although I find that difficult to assimilate, because it is wrong.

I successfully ran my own retail business and I know that getting the best from staff and customers alike is only possible by employing the highest levels of courtesy, respect and transparency at all times. My motto was always that we should treat people as we would wish to be treated ourselves. That is important.

Some people do not find it easy to stand up to being abused or compromised, but it is important that they do stand up when they feel that that has happened. USDAW’s annual campaign gives us the opportunity to highlight not only the successes that there have been but the worries and concerns that individuals face. We must stand up and protect workers. The laws that we pass must do that, and they should inform people that we must treat shopworkers with the respect that they deserve.

Support, respect and tolerance must be our watchwords. We should do all that we can to protect and assist workers and ensure that any worker, regardless of the sector in which they work, is treated with dignity and respect.

17:20  

I declare an interest in that I am a proud member of USDAW, the shopworkers’ union.

I thank my colleague Daniel Johnson for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I pay tribute to USDAW for its continued campaigning for shopworkers’ rights—although I am disappointed that there is still a need for this type of debate in Scotland today.

The motion recognises USDAW’s freedom from fear campaign and, specifically, respect for shopworkers week, which begins on Monday. I am sure that all members across the chamber will agree that the campaign is important, because it affects all the shopworkers whom we meet in our high streets and our supermarkets—people who provide a service to our constituents as well. With the retail crime survey showing that shopworkers face increasing levels of violence, all members should get behind and support the campaign.

The freedom from fear campaign seeks to prevent violence, threats and abuse against workers. Abuse should not be part of a shopworker’s job; they should not have to face the possibility of being threatened when they go to work. Nevertheless, for too many shopworkers abuse is part of their everyday working life. They face regular threats and abusive behaviour from customers, and it is simply not good enough. Abuse should not be any part of their job. Let us remember that as we approach black Friday and the busy Christmas shopping period.

I recognise the work that Daniel Johnson is doing on the issue. Does Jackie Baillie recognise that some shopworkers face additional fear and alarm because of the late nights that they have to work, often without public transport to get them home and often taking buses and other forms of transport on which they may be faced with people who are drunk or out of order? That is a focus of the freedom from fear campaign as well.

I absolutely recognise that. Abuse takes place not just in the shop but in the wider community. We need to challenge that culture, and Kezia Dugdale is absolutely right to raise the issue.

As a result of USDAW’s campaign, many employers have reviewed security measures in and around their shops and have carried out staff training. That is a welcome step forward, but the campaign requires more than can be done by trade unions alone, which is exactly Kezia Dugdale’s point. The campaign must be about issues such as neighbourhood policing, underage sales and additional legal protection for workers, and tackling those issues requires political intervention.

I am pleased to say that the previous United Kingdom Labour Government and the Scottish Government did a great deal to tackle such behaviour both here and across the UK, but we need to do more. We have extra police officers, but not all of them are on our streets. We have seen a reduction in crime overall, but, according to the retail crime survey, the abuse of shopworkers has increased by a staggering 40 per cent.

I am proud that successive Labour politicians—Hugh Henry and Daniel Johnson—have tried to make the workplace safer. When Hugh Henry introduced the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill, he received support from major supermarket chains such as the Co-operative, Morrisons and Asda. They called on the Parliament to take action to protect their employees. However, as that bill did not progress, the current law is still not strong enough.

The retail crime survey shows that one of the major trigger points for abuse or violence against staff is alcohol sales. In fact, 41 per cent of shop staff experience abuse at least once a week when asking for proof of age. That is simply not acceptable. Shopworkers should not be threatened or abused for simply adhering to the law. Challenge 25 imposes a duty on retail workers to ask for proof of age from anyone who looks under 25 when they are purchasing items that require the buyer to be over 18. Presiding Officer, it is a long time since we have had our proof of age required, but I look forward to that happening in the future. [Laughter.]

Daniel Johnson’s bill would make it illegal to obstruct or hinder a retail worker when they are carrying out their legal duties. Those are legal duties that we, as politicians, have placed on workers; it is up to us to protect them from threatening behaviour when they are implementing the law. I urge all members to get involved in USDAW’s freedom from fear campaign in their local shops and in the supermarkets in their local communities. Above all, I urge them to support Daniel Johnson’s bill to give shopworkers the protection at work that they deserve.

Thank you, Ms Baillie. I am glad that you alluded to yourself as well in that age-specific comment.

17:24  

I congratulate Daniel Johnson on securing the debate. It is a timely discussion of an important issue given the fact that, as other members have mentioned, black Friday and Christmas are fast approaching.

It is regrettable that, too often, shopworkers join other front-line staff in not being afforded the respect that everyone deserves while seeking to make a living, provide a service and contribute to society. We have seen that in the past few days in the bonfire night issues that have been faced by our emergency services. Most shopworkers work long hours, often not for the highest wages. For many young people, it is their first taste of the job market, yet, on occasion, they have to deal with difficult and abusive customers or even threats of violence.

In the Highlands and Islands, there are a large number of small, independent businesses. Shopworkers in many of those businesses act not only as a customer service representative but as a security guard, doorkeeper and complaints handler in addition to organising many of the backroom activities of the business.

While acknowledging the most overt problems that shopworkers confront, we should also consider the deeper issues. Workplace stress and the physical side of the job come to mind, but, in some cases, inadequate training and skills development continues to constrain staff. We also place additional expectations on shopworkers. For example, we expect them to watch for shoplifters and to take responsibility for checking dates of birth for age-related purchases—I make no further comment on that issue, Presiding Officer. However, those additional responsibilities often do not come with additional benefits. Instead, they can create disadvantages, and shopworkers can find themselves in situations that are a catalyst for confrontation or in roles that they are thrust into without sufficient training.

We may frequently use the term “difficult customer”—many of us may, at one time or another, have fitted that description. However, how often have we stopped to think about the person whom we are being difficult with? That person may have their own problems—with health, relationships or money—but they are expected to stand and accept everything, not just from that one difficult customer but from many customers day in, day out. Why should shopworkers and other service economy workers put up with sarcasm, rudeness and inappropriate comments? Some people will never be happy, but they would not dream of being so rude to workers in other sectors. Often, that lack of respect can be aimed at the workers and owners of small enterprises such as businesses that are open all hours, providing a vital community service.

I dare say that a particularly obnoxious customer will be told by a business owner not to come back. However, in the vast majority of businesses, workers do not have that luxury and must bite their tongue and suffer in silence, often believing the maxim that the customer is always right. Employers are slowly changing, though, and I see more and more signs indicating that any abuse of staff will not be tolerated. Nevertheless, we need more than signs. There remain far too many cases of staff feeling that it is a waste of time to complain about the way that a customer has treated them because the employer may believe that it was the staff member’s attitude that caused the customer’s reaction.

We all know the value of well-trained, motivated staff, but many employers need to do more to support their staff, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is the economically sensible thing to do. Staff who feel that they are valued and have the support of their employer in dealing with their workplace needs, such as freedom from abuse, will repay that support.

17:28  

I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank the trade union USDAW for its dogged campaigning on the issue. I also thank other trade unions, such as Unite, Unison, GMB and the rail unions, for all the work that they have done to highlight the issue of violence, abuse, intimidation and threats against shop staff, delivery staff, transport workers, banking and finance workers and all other workers who, day in, day out, serve us in shops, on public counters, on buses, trains and planes and in other places where business transactions take place.

My sister works as a stewardess with British Airways, and I regularly hear stories about the way that the airline’s customers treat the staff. What the staff sometimes have to go through is horrifying.

Retail is a big employer in my region and is often a gateway into the world of work, particularly for young people. All too often, young people are on very low or zero-hours contracts. They can be subject to exploitative workplace practices and—seeing as this is living wage week—are often on very low pay. Increasingly, many of them are put in dangerous situations, whether in fast-food outlets late at night, in bookies shops or through working as delivery drivers, bar workers or in corner shops. Those places leave people really vulnerable.

Small local shops are particularly vulnerable. Two years ago, my local shopkeeper, Mr Akbar Ali, who is a friend of mine, became a YouTube sensation after using a plastic chair to fight off a knife-wielding man who tried to steal his till. Although Mr Ali, totally against his character, came to national prominence in the media, he could easily have ended up dead as a victim of knife crime.

No worker, whether they be a police officer, firefighter, prison officer, fast-food worker, delivery driver or someone who works in a call centre or a local corner shop, should be expected to face violence, abuse, intimidation or attack at work. No worker, irrespective of their job, should expect that, which is why we must continue campaigning as we are doing today.

I thank Daniel Johnson and USDAW for again bringing the freedom from fear campaign to the Parliament, and I urge all the trade unions to continue their campaign on these important issues. We will have satisfaction only when we do not have to bring the debate to the Parliament every single year, because that is when we will know that we have made progress on the issue.

17:31  

I join other members in thanking Daniel Johnson for bringing the debate to Parliament. I have not seen the article that Stewart Stevenson mentioned was in today’s Metro newspaper, but I am sure that we all join him in wishing the person who was highlighted in the article the very best.

I agree with the sentiments that everyone has expressed in the debate that it is important that we mark respect for shopworkers week. We all have constituents who work in the sector. Respect for shopworkers week takes place next week and, as Neil Findlay correctly pointed out, this week is living wage week. It is important that we reflect on that in the debate, even perhaps only in passing, because a fundamental part of respecting our shopworkers is ensuring that they are adequately remunerated for work, and that they get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. In that regard, I was delighted a short while ago to visit an employer that Daniel Johnson is well aware of—Paper Tiger, which is one of the 1,000 accredited living-wage employers across the country.

In the run-up to living wage week, I wrote to all the major employers in Livingston shopping centre, encouraging them to pay the living wage. Just yesterday, I was pleased to find that Asda and Marks & Spencer have been the first to write back to me confirming that they pay the living wage. I think that we would all welcome that, but I was surprised and disappointed to find that both companies said that they are not seeking accreditation. Has the minister had discussions with those companies, and can he shed light on why companies that pay the living wage do not want to be accredited for it?

I cannot comment specifically on why those companies might want not to be accredited, but I can say that they would not be eligible to be accredited under the terms of the Scottish living wage accreditation initiative, which the Living Wage Foundation has set up, because organisations have to be Scotland-specific employers, such as Paper Tiger, in order to be accredited. I do not want to stray too far from the bounds of my knowledge of the UK-wide initiative, but I think that those companies would have to seek accreditation directly with the Living Wage Foundation in London. [Interruption.] I am unclear about why Mr Findlay is concerned by my answers, because I absolutely agree with him that it is incumbent on all of us in Parliament to encourage people to seek living wage accreditation, whether it is done through the Scottish living wage initiative or the UK initiative.

I am not raising any points of contention with what the minister said. I am saying that it appears that they are not seeking accreditation from anyone. Could the Scottish Government have discussions with big employers such as those to encourage them to get accredited?

I will always be willing, in my ministerial capacity or in my capacity as an accredited living wage employer in my role as a member of the Scottish Parliament, to engage in dialogue or discussion with an employer of any size, whether they are eligible for accreditation through the Scotland-specific scheme or the UK-wide scheme.

I fear that I have probably strayed a little far from the terms of the debate.

That was an important intervention, but in fairness to Mr Johnson, I would like you to address the issues that he raised in the motion.

I would like to do so as well, but I was trying to place the debate in the context that an important part of respect for shopworkers is ensuring that they are properly paid.

We have—rightly—heard that violence against shopworkers is never acceptable, so we should send out the strongest possible signal from Parliament that, as a society, we will not tolerate such behaviour, which is why it is important that we have this debate.

Our police, courts and prosecutors already have a range of extensive powers to protect workers and to deter individuals from perpetrating criminal behaviour against people who work in the retail sector. We all have that protection under the common law of assault, which provides legal protection to everyone in our society as they go about their daily lives, including in the workplace.

We know from the official figures, including for the retail sector, that the long-term trend in recorded crime has been on a downward trajectory. However, I recognise that the UK-wide survey that Daniel Johnson outlined and the Scottish Grocers Federation survey—I think that Jackie Baillie referred to the retail crime survey, but meant the Scottish Grocers Federation survey, which is Scotland specific—had similar findings, which are very concerning. I wonder whether there is a bit of a disconnect, because we can see the problem that Daniel Johnson identified, which is that a number of people who have had such crimes perpetrated against them are reluctant to report them. Again, it is very important that we send out a message that anyone who has a crime perpetrated against them, including in the workplace, should report that to the police for investigation and, we hope, for prosecution.

The minister made a fair point that there is something to investigate in the disconnect between reported recorded crime and the experience that is reported in the surveys, but as he will know, the Scottish Government stopped recording retail crime figures separately from other crimes in 2008. Will he consider reinstating separate recording of those statistics?

That was a useful intervention, because we are doing that. Questions on retail crime have been included in the Scottish crime and justice survey since 2016-17 in order to provide updated statistics on the subject. The results for 2016-17 will be published early next year. I agree that it is important that we ask for that type of information, which we are now doing. I hope that that reassures Mr Johnson.

On the specific issue of the challenge 25 scheme, I did not detect from members any sense that challenge 25 is the wrong thing to do. We all agree that it is an effective mechanism by which we can tackle underage drinking and that it is right that we have that in law. In particular, that is because we know that a significant proportion of violence is drink-fuelled, although not all of it is, as Mr Stewart was quite right to place on the record.

The first thing that I point out is that we already have in place the legal framework. No one should be impeded by any individual in any way as they go about their legal responsibilities, including in relation to the initiative that we are discussing. The mechanisms are in place. That said, I am interested to see—I say “see” not “learn”, because I think that he had already flagged it up—that Mr Johnson intends to introduce a member’s bill. We will consider it in detail. The request that the Government should do more is well made: we are always willing to do more. However, we will have to assess the efficacy of the proposition. I have made the point that the legal framework is already in place, but if more can be done in terms of the law, we will consider that.

In the context of the debate, respect for shopkeepers is of the utmost importance. No individual in Scottish society should have to face abuse or violence in any context, least of all in the workplace. We will always be willing to do what we can to respond to such incidents. We—not only the Government, but Parliament—should send the clearest and strongest possible message that Scotland will not tolerate such behaviour.

Meeting closed at 17:40.