Plenary, 13 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, January 13, 2000

Official Report 854KB pdf

---

Social Workers and Violence

I appeal to members who are not staying for members' business to leave quickly and quietly.

Members' business today is a debate on motion S1M-283, in the name of Mrs Margaret Smith, on social workers and violence. [Interruption.] I ask Mr Gallie, Mr Galbraith and the other members in the corner to have their discussion outside.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament deplores the escalating levels of violence visited upon social workers in Edinburgh in the course of their duties; recognises that this is a national problem, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to promote the view that having to face the threat of violence is not an acceptable feature of any profession.

Most politicians face a certain amount of abuse, written or verbal, in their working lives, whether from the public, the press, political opponents or, indeed, political colleagues. However, I hope that none of us will ever have to live day to day with fear for our personal safety, because we have chosen to be public figures and public servants. Yet, as politicians, we are the employers of many public servants who know the real fear of violence and abuse—nurses, police officers, fire officers, teachers and benefit workers are just a few of those who suffer problems as they go about their daily job of caring for the welfare of the people of Scotland.

Welfare workers and nurses are four times more likely to be physically attacked than other workers. Last year's Royal College of Nursing and Nursing Times Stamp Out Violence campaign showed that almost half of nurses had been assaulted. The campaign received the backing of the national health service and improvements have been made.

However, I want to draw attention to the escalating violence against social workers—the welfare workers in the front line of care. More than three quarters of social workers have experienced violence or abuse while doing their job. Nearly 90 per cent of them have experienced the risk of violence while at work. Those figures are shocking and I hope that, by highlighting them in the Parliament, we will send a clear message that the situation is totally unacceptable to all of us. The general public, social work managers and clients must also agree that it is unacceptable.

Make no mistake, some people think that social workers deserve what they get, although they would never feel the same way about nurses.

Many members of the public have little or no experience of social workers, and their perceptions are formed from a diet of tabloid headlines that are only too quick to blame social workers and are never anything other than slow to praise them. The good work done every day throughout Scotland by social workers in day care centres, adult training centres, young people's centres, primary care joint working teams and elsewhere tends to be ignored, to the extent that 82 per cent of social workers believe that negative press attacks hinder them in doing their job and in the fight against violence.

I have secured the debate to highlight that, and to support other work elsewhere to highlight this important issue. Some of that work has been done through Community Care magazine's "no fear" campaign, which aims to reduce the violence and stress in social work throughout Britain.

Liberal Democrats in City of Edinburgh Council, led by our social work spokesperson in the council, Paul Edie, have also contributed: in response to a motion by Lib Dems in the council, a social work committee report showed that reported violent incidents had increased by 10 per cent every year since 1996. That figure was for Edinburgh, but I do not think that Edinburgh is any different from other parts of the country—it is just that one of its council departments has examined the matter.

The likelihood of violence has increased for social workers in young people's centres and for those working in day care units with people with learning difficulties. It seems that female employees are under particular threat.

I am pleased that the council's social work department is now undertaking a review of its departmental guidelines on arrangements for dealing with violence at work, paying particular attention to the security of units, communication between staff, developing procedures to deal with violent and potentially violent situations and developing an essential training strategy on violence.

Social workers are under a high risk of violence for several reasons. They often deal with people at crisis point, who are facing terrible personal situations, be it related to drug or alcohol addiction, mental health problems, crime, abuse or a family break-up. Because of the nature of their job, they often work with those people in their own homes, not in social work offices or at a more neutral venue. It is essential that all social work departments undertake compulsory risk assessment, give social work staff formal training to deal with violent individuals and teach them techniques for calming situations down. Nearly half the social workers surveyed by Community Care magazine said that they had received no

formal training on how to defuse potentially violent situations.

Departments must start asking key questions. Are staff expected to deliver services to potentially violent clients alone? Is there a call-in system for the period after visits? Do managers know where staff are at any time? Has the environment, as well as the person being visited, been risk-assessed? Are mobile phones and alarms issued to staff?

Social work departments have a legal duty under health and safety legislation to protect their employees, and to provide safe working conditions as far as reasonably practicable. Councils that fail to do so may face costly compensation claims, yet some councils still do not have systems for violent incidents.

It is clear that assaults on an individual member of staff have a stressful and demoralising impact, not only on that individual, but throughout the work force. Any management or Government that fails to recognise the seriousness of the situation, possibly out of some sense that violence is just part of the job of being a social worker, might have to face low morale, rising absenteeism, recruitment problems and loss of productivity. That shapes the overall effectiveness of the service and the delivery of services to the people whom we all serve.

It is essential that local managers take the matter seriously from day one to improve on the present situation, in which two thirds of social workers who have been attacked do not feel sufficiently supported by senior staff in dealing with their attack. Employees must look out for their own and their colleagues' safety. That means moving away from a culture of acceptance of verbal abuse.

More social workers would report a case of physical abuse or assault, but how many are failing to report being sworn at, threatened or called names, which can be the start of a process of violence towards social workers by clients? Their reasons for not reporting abuse include cultural acceptance that it is par for the course, and powerlessness, feeling that nothing will happen even if an incident is reported. Although 26 per cent of the incidents in Edinburgh were serious enough to be reported to the police, few violent clients are prosecuted.

Greater preventive measures and a clear message that violence against workers will not be tolerated are needed. Social workers and their employers should be prepared to follow through to prosecution; to do otherwise is to allow the profession to slip into a mire of hopelessness— with a shrug, platitude, sigh of resignation and little else. The Parliament must give a clear signal that it will do more than that. Can the Deputy Minister for Community Care tell us why, although violence against social workers is a UK-wide problem, Scottish social workers are twice as likely to suffer assaults as social workers in England?

That is one reason why, rather than lagging behind Westminster, the Parliament ought to take the lead. I know that the Executive has taken steps to promote the view that the threat of violence is unacceptable. In May 1998, Sam Galbraith asked the Association of Directors of Social Work to produce a guidance pack on supporting front-line staff, which included the issues of violence and stress. The report fell short of recommending compulsory risk assessment, as called for by the British Association of Social Workers. However, it recommended other things— measures that must be taken further. We would do well to follow Frank Dobson, who last September announced a Government task force to tackle violence against social work staff in England.

I thank colleagues from all parties who signed my motion, allowing us to have the debate. I call on the Executive to consider the following actions: a multidisciplinary task force similar to the English model, including people from the voluntary sector, to look at the issues, rather than relying on a management-only review; compulsory risk assessment and anti-violence policies in all social work departments; and more consultation with social workers before the Scottish social services council introduces changes.

Social workers help the most vulnerable members of society. In doing so, they make themselves vulnerable. For their sake and to provide top-quality social work services in Scotland, we must stem the rising tide of violence against them and support public service workers.

Seven members have indicated a wish to speak. I am not minded to entertain a motion for extension, but if speeches are kept under three minutes, we might manage five speeches.

Thank you. I will keep my remarks brief.

I welcome the debate and congratulate Margaret Smith on lodging the motion. She is right in what she said, particularly on the tabloid image that social work has. When I went to the University of Stirling in 1984 to train in social work, someone quipped that it would be the central qualification in stealing weans that I would be studying for. Unfortunately, that is still the image that social workers have. Because of that, violence and swearing are too often accepted by social workers, almost on a daily basis. Often workers feel that violence towards them is somehow their fault or

responsibility, so it is better, particularly if they have recently qualified, not to report it, as it might be held against them.

When I joined Fife social work department, I became a National Union of Public Employees shop steward, and then a Unison shop steward, and I seemed to spend most of my time encouraging people to report incidents of violence against them. Some that were quite serious went unreported for the reasons that I have given. Also, managers often do not offer the support needed. I hope that as a social work manager I was not guilty of that, but one would have to ask the staff I supervised.

Social workers, particularly field workers, often visit people alone, and there are good practice reasons why it can be better to have only one person going into someone's house, but thorough risk assessments should be carried out. Field social workers can be their own worst enemies because they are not very good at saying where they are going, and when they are in an area, they might nip in and see someone else whom they were unable to see the previous week.

It is not that people want to have to account for all their actions, but they need to take some responsibility for their actions and for their safety. However, it is up to senior management in our social work departments to ensure that they are able to do that, and that they are encouraged to see that as a legitimate practice.

I have no easy answers to the question of how violence against social workers can be avoided. However, having the debate in the chamber today highlights the issue. Violence against social workers should not be singled out. We should make it clear that it is unacceptable for violence, particularly physical violence, to be used against anybody who is carrying out their day-to-day job. Although we are discussing social workers today, the principle could easily apply to many other professions, and we should hold on to that idea.

Most social workers enter the profession because they care about people and what happens to them. We must not allow the situation to continue in which there are almost daily instances of violence towards social workers as they go about their work.

The survey that was conducted last year, which was referred to by Margaret Smith, highlighted the fact that 56 per cent of social workers had been the victims of violence at work, that the average number of violent incidents that people experienced was six, and that 20 per cent of those who were assaulted required medical treatment.

None of that is beneficial to the worker, the service users, the local authority or society.

Violence towards social workers is unacceptable, but it is not unexpected, as we have heard. Most people would rather not have involvement with the social work departments. If and when they do, the circumstances are generally stressful. Depending on the issues or crises, people can be extremely upset, angry or frustrated—and a lot more besides. More often than not, social workers are the full-time staff who must deal with those raw emotions.

Social work practice is all about minimising risk and ensuring that people are safe. However, like Scott Barrie, I know of examples of ways in which we are not very good at looking after ourselves. Too many times, because of the pressure of work, the shortage of staff, or general under-resourcing, sensible, precautionary, good practice measures are not taken. One worker goes out on a visit instead of two, workers fail to ensure that a mobile phone is available, no one checks whether the workers come back at 5 o'clock, or only young and inexperienced care staff are left to look after a group of troubled young people.

Like others today, I speak from experience. I worked in residential care and field work, which are acknowledged to be areas in which staff are in danger of violence at work. My own worst experience happened after I had removed two young children from the care of their parents. Their father openly threatened to kill me with a Kalashnikov. Not being able to put his hands on one of those, he came back later with a shotgun. Fortunately, with police assistance, the situation was resolved without injury.

Many social workers, as we have heard, have felt that, even in such circumstances, they did not want to bring charges against users of the service, for several reasons: those individuals have enough problems in their lives; they acted in a moment of high stress; and the relationship has to be kept open, to address problems in the future. That is the wrong message to give to people. Whatever the circumstances, people need to be held accountable for their actions. I would not go to the extremes that were seemingly suggested by Frank Dobson, who has talked about establishing a new criminal offence. That is unhelpful and unnecessary, and it could be counterproductive and further alienate some of the people with whom social workers work. Implementation of the law as it stands is all that is needed by the profession.

I strongly support the recommendation that employers in all sectors should take seriously their responsibilities towards the health and safety of staff, but everyone—social workers, employers and society—must play their part to resolve this unacceptable situation.

Margaret Smith is to be congratulated on raising this very important matter. There is general acceptance that the risk of violence and the episodes that have arisen are much too widespread, and that their level is far too high—as it is in relation to firefighters, whose position is also a source of concern.

I have four questions for the minister to address. First, the British Association of Social Workers has stated that, in the code of conduct for employers, there should be a requirement for employers

"to take their responsibilities in respect of the health and safety of their staff seriously in the prevention . . . of violence".

That should be examined; perhaps it could be incorporated in legislation to be introduced in the summer.

The second question that I would like to ask the minister is on provision of training that emphasises prevention of violence. The British Association of Social Workers says that risk assessment and measures for the prevention of possible violence must be developed for the training of social care staff, and for inclusion in the delivery of services.

It is impossible not to be full of admiration for the expertise of social workers—Irene McGugan has had considerable experience. More protection must be provided, and I am glad to see that City of Edinburgh Council is working up a risk management strategy. That, of course, will have resource implications, so my third question to the minister is: will the Executive examine practice such as that being developed in Edinburgh, with a view to ensuring that best practice is adopted throughout Scotland's local authorities to reduce risks to staff?

Finally, will the minister ensure that the necessary resources are made available to councils, to implement the measures that are necessary to secure staff safety, and so that the measures do not rob councils of funding for other front-line services? Perhaps it would be helpful to provide mobile telephones for staff. Sufficient resources should, in any case, be made available to achieve the aims of the campaign to reduce the level of violent incidents—a level that is far too high.

I am glad to support Margaret Smith's recommendations.

Facts are chiels that winna ding, and the facts about the violence to social workers and other public servants are well documented. However, many of the issues around the facts are affected by people's perceptions, of which I would like to mention three.

First, there is a tacit acceptance of violence by perpetrators, victims and bystanders—which includes all of us. Violence must be challenged at all levels and on all occasions.

Secondly, there is a feeling that asking for help is wimpish behaviour. Any request for help should be treated seriously and there should be recognition that a request for help shows that there is an underlying problem that deserves serious consideration. There is a corollary to that—if there is a problem, help should be asked for. In other words, the avenue for recognition that there is a problem and how it should be dealt with must be opened up.

The third perception has been touched on by other members. After years of denigration of social workers by the press when things have not gone well, there is a perception that social workers are "low-status workers". That description is emphatically in inverted commas, and I used it as a shorthand description. It is long past the time when social work should have been given the credit that it deserves as a profession that requires a high level of professional training. It is a profession that picks up and deals with many of the difficult, awkward and sometimes downright nasty problems in our society. It does that along with all its other good work in an extremely wide range of services.

I would like to refer to a suggestion that Margaret Smith made, because I want to emphasise how important it is. That suggestion is the setting up of a multidisciplinary task force to address how we should set about tackling violence against social workers. Such a task force should include representation from the voluntary sector, but it is essential that it draws on the experience of staff in the front line. Managers will not necessarily have a full picture of the current situation.

Incidents of violence might not be reported for various reasons—that was also touched on by previous speakers. The reasons can range from tacit or even overt discouragement from head-inthe- sand management, to fear of blame, simple embarrassment, or a lack of confidence that anything will be done when incidents are reported.

I will digress to note how important it is—

I do not think that there is much time for digression.

As I do not have time, I will not digress.

We must tackle the issue head on, challenge various perceptions and involve fully the front-line staff whose safety and well-being are ultimately our responsibility.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a debate on a subject on which I am not an expert—having heard some of the speeches, I feel quite ashamed.

I take small issue with the motion, which says that

"having to face the threat of violence is not an acceptable feature of any profession."

As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton pointed out, firemen and many other public servants who work on our behalf face the same hazards in the course of their duties. Would it be acceptable to Margaret Smith that the multidisciplinary task force should consider public sector workers, such as social workers, firemen and so on? The principle is agreed by everyone in the chamber, which is a development.

We have hardly touched on the issue of resources. I accept that Scottish National party members are accused of whistling for resources that we cannot possibly afford, unless, of course, we cancel Trident—but we will not go into that now.

However, I think that, in November, the Deputy Minister for Community Care admitted to my colleague Michael Matheson that there was a cut in resources of up to 26 per cent in expenditure and services for physically disabled people across Scotland. I suggest that that cut might contribute to the feelings of frustration and so on that can build up, not necessarily for the client but for their family, relatives and friends, when they realise that the client has to wait for up to a year for an assessment. Once that assessment has taken place, the client has to go on to a waiting list before the service can be delivered, because of such cuts and the lack of resources. I will not lecture people who know better than I do how frustrations build up, which can bring about the sort of violence of which we are too well aware.

I make a plea to the minister to re-examine the resources and to pay heed to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point about the excellent practice being developed in City of Edinburgh Council on the management of risk. Does it have implications for resources, and can those resources be fed into social work budgets? As much as the establishment of the Scottish social services council will encourage people to feel that their professionalism is being judged worthy of acknowledgement, they also need resources. If they need resources so that they can carry out their jobs more effectively, it is down to the minister to provide them.

I offer my regrets to the two members who were not called to speak.

I thank Margaret Smith for drawing the Parliament's attention to this important and difficult subject. I also take the opportunity afforded by the debate to acknowledge the efforts of the social work profession over the millennium and winter period. We have heard about the efforts of national health service staff a number of times, but we should not forget that it is also a time of particular pressure for social work departments in their work in community and social care.

I agree with Margaret Smith that it is an unacceptable state of affairs that committed and dedicated social workers should be subject to verbal abuse, the threat of violence or even violent attack by some of the people for whom they provide services. As Margaret said, it is unacceptable that social workers are also sometimes undermined by ill-judged and sensationalist reporting of cases in which they have been involved.

However, we need to acknowledge—as a number of members have done—that this is not an easy problem to resolve. The origins of that violent behaviour are many and complex, and we must recognise that the perpetrators are among the most damaged and excluded members of our society. Their behaviour may be fuelled by drink or drugs, which is not to excuse such behaviour. We simply need to realise, as I think we have done during this short debate, that a considerable level of understanding is required so that managers and staff can work together to reduce and eliminate the unacceptable attacks on a key group of public sector workers.

The responsibility for supporting staff who may be subject to abuse or attack rests clearly and most directly with their employers, whether they be local authorities, or voluntary or private agencies. However, we are happy to accept that the Scottish Executive also has a responsibility—we have been active in supporting those employers in fulfilling their responsibilities.

I would like to give three or four examples of the initiatives that are under way, many of which have already been mentioned by members. Margaret Smith, for example, pointed out that a year before the launch of Community Care magazine's "no fear" campaign in July 1999, Sam Galbraith—who was then the Scottish Office minister with responsibility for social work—highlighted the problem in a seven-point plan that he outlined in a speech to the annual conference of the Association of Directors of Social Work. It is good to report that the ADSW took up that challenge, consulted the local authorities and the social work services inspectorate and has now published the resource pack, "Supporting Front Line Staff", the

publication and distribution of which was funded by the Scottish Executive.

The pack gives guidance on a number of the points that have to be addressed to improve safety for staff: practical procedures to avoid risk situations; management practices; staff training; and a comprehensive monitoring system. It also points towards examples of good practice by local authorities. It is important to acknowledge that there are such examples, not least in Edinburgh. Several members have acknowledged that City of Edinburgh Council is currently revising and improving its guidelines in response to the motion that was lodged there, but there are other examples.

I would not want to suggest for a moment that we believe that the problem will be resolved simply by producing a resource pack. The ADSW is well aware of that and has set up a task force that is currently considering what the second stage of the campaign should be. We will collaborate with the association as it decides which direction we should take. I believe that that puts us ahead of Frank Dobson's task force and maintains ownership by the profession in a very direct way. That addresses a point that was made from the Scottish National party benches.

The other key initiative that is under way is the consultation paper on "Regulating Care and the Social Services Workforce" that came out last December. It proposes the establishment of the Scottish social services council, which will regulate the work force and its education. It will also provide leadership for the profession and the recognition that it deserves, as several members have said.

The council will be required to prepare, publish and keep under review employers' codes of conduct and practice. That will include a code of practice for all employers of social services staff, whether local authority, voluntary or private. The code will include management responsibilities concerning the reduction of abuse and violence towards the work force. The Scottish commission for the regulation of care, proposed in the same document, will regulate the delivery of care in care settings. Part of that will involve ensuring that properly trained staff are in place and that there are proper procedures such as recording of incidents, to meet the requirements of commission inspection.

Unhappily, the statistics that have been quoted throughout the debate show that a significant group of perpetrators of abuse and violence towards staff are children who are looked after by the local authority, particularly those in residential care. Staff in that setting need to be particularly skilful and sensitive when providing care, as they are particularly at risk. That is why the Scottish

Executive has recently awarded a major grant to a partnership of agencies, led by the University of Strathclyde, to enhance and develop the education and training of all staff providing residential child care services. That is aimed at ensuring proper and continuing training for all residential children's care staff in Scotland— exactly the kind of measure referred to, quite correctly, by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in his speech. We need to train people in ways of ensuring that they minimise risk to themselves in their work setting.

This has been a short debate, in which a number of issues have been raised that will return to the chamber, for example, as the legislation to set up the council and commission develops.

There is a Vietnamese proverb that translates as:

"Those who bring light suffer burning".

The truth is that we ask our social workers to work in some dark and difficult corners of society. It is too often a thankless and dangerous task. We will not accept that, tacitly or otherwise, and will continue to work with the profession to ensure that we minimise the risks that social workers face.

Meeting closed at 17:40.