Freedom from Fear Campaign
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5309, in the name of Hugh Henry, on the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers freedom from fear campaign. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is shocked and horrified that there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; recognises that the sale of age-restricted products, especially alcohol, is a frequent flashpoint for verbal abuse, threats and violence against shop workers; further recognises the difficulties that shop workers, including in Paisley South, have in policing age-restricted sales and how that can leave them vulnerable, isolated and under threat of prosecution when mistakes are made; considers that there would be benefit in high-profile campaigns that support the Think 25 policy and highlight to youngsters that it is an offence to attempt to buy alcohol under age, and would welcome a partnership approach to the development of strategies to prevent under-age sales rather than sting operations, which seek to prosecute shop workers.
17:08
Like many others, I take for granted the fact that there should be no abuse or violence at work. People think that should be the norm in a civilised society, but unfortunately that is still not the case for many workers across Scotland, particularly shop workers.
Over the past few years, like many other members of the Scottish Parliament, I have received regular reports of violence against bus workers, train drivers, postal workers, social care staff and, of course, shop workers. Indeed, I have received such reports about many other workers in different occupations in Scotland. That is the main reason for my proposed workers (aggravated offences) Scotland bill. I am grateful to MSPs not only from the Labour Party but from other parties who have supported my proposal, and I look forward to taking the bill on to its next stage. I am also grateful for broad-based support from trade unions in not only highlighting the problems that their members experience but offering practical support in moving forward what is, for them, a very important bill.
Tonight, I will focus on one issue: violence against and abuse of shop workers. In 2002, USDAW, the shop workers union, launched its freedom from fear campaign to highlight the violence and abuse that shop workers throughout the United Kingdom face.
Since then, USDAW has organised annual respect for shop workers events, including events in Scotland. I have been pleased to help to highlight the issue by hosting events here in the Scottish Parliament. One feature of the campaign is that events have secured support from MSPs from all political parties. I know that USDAW is grateful for that broad-based support.
Unfortunately, the problem does not go away. I acknowledge that, since USDAW launched its campaign, there has been a decline in the number of reported incidents, but everything is relative. In 2009, there were still more than 13,000 physical attacks and hundreds of thousands of reported cases of regular verbal abuse across the United Kingdom. That is unacceptable—no worker should have to face such incidents in the course of their employment.
I pay tribute to USDAW for the work that it has done in taking such a determined stance against a problem that is totally unacceptable. John Hannett, the general secretary of USDAW, has led from the front and put his union fully behind the campaign to make a difference. I thank David Williams, the political officer of USDAW, for the work that he has done. He has been a true friend to those in Scotland who have campaigned on the issue. John Scott may not share my view, but I wish David Williams well in his campaign to be elected as the next member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich and look forward to him being at Westminster. Here in Scotland, Lawrence Wason and Stewart Forrest have been vigorous in their work to promote awareness of the problem and to bring it to the attention of the wider public.
I was shocked when I heard the total number of assaults on people who are working. Has work been done to determine the percentage of assaults that are caused by people’s reliance on alcohol or misuse of drugs, or pure bad manners? Have we categorised the problem? Do we have any idea why assaults happen?
A particular phrase was used in the motion, but that should not be taken as denigrating test purchasing. As a minister, I was fully behind the introduction of test purchasing: I promoted it, I welcome it and I believe that it has been used to good effect in many areas in Scotland. The points that I am trying to make tonight are that responsible shop workers should not carry the full responsibility and take the full brunt of the problems that are caused by someone who is under age managing to purchase alcohol, and that there should be a supporting strategy to prevent underage sales. The motion is not about stopping or replacing test purchasing; it is about having a broader strategy to tackle the problem.
I thank Hugh Henry for that clarification. I agree that we must have a broad strategy to tackle the issue, and I do not think that anyone would want a shop assistant to be prosecuted because they made a mistake: anyone can make a mistake. Shop owners must take the bulk of the responsibility in these circumstances.
In that case, I do not think that there is much more to be said, other than to congratulate Hugh Henry once more on lodging an excellent motion, and to wish USDAW every success in the campaign.
17:28
I do not know for a fact, but USDAW is a forwarding-thinking union and I am sure that it will have an education programme. I know that some of the larger retailers go into schools to talk to young people about the trade and how they should behave when they are in those shops.
During alcohol awareness week, I had the opportunity to visit some shops in my constituency where I could speak to the folk who serve at the counter and who have to tell people that they will not sell them cigarettes or alcohol. Sometimes, people who are perhaps old enough to purchase such products but who are fortunate enough not to look their age will hurl abuse at the shopkeeper. I really feel that there is a job there for the Government—for all of us—in telling people who are fortunate enough to look younger than their age that it should be automatic for them to put their passport or some other form of ID in their pocket. I have experience of that in Cathy Peattie’s constituency. I remember as an 18-year-old heading off on a Saturday night to Dock’s dancing—it would be called a nightclub now—with a friend of mine. We were looking forward to going into the dancing and had gone there by bus only to be stopped at the door to be told that we were not old enough. “But we’re 18”, said both of us. “Ah, no. You have to be 21,” we were told as we were turned back. At that time, I looked younger than my age, so we had to make a point of taking along some form of ID if we wanted to go to the dancing, particularly in Falkirk—I do not know what people had against us in that area.
I believe that the trade unions and the workers are doing everything possible to raise the issue with the politicians. Shop workers are doing everything that they can not to sell age-restricted products to young people. In turn, that pays off in the communities where they live. Therefore, the Government must now come forward with support for the shop workers. Given the amount of Government spending on advertising that we have heard about in recent weeks, is it not time that the Government joined the retailers in promoting proof-of-age schemes by saying that people need to bring some form of ID with them? The unions, the retailers and the workers cannot do all of that on their own.
I hope that the minister will take those points on board and respond to them in his summing up.
17:32
I too congratulate Hugh Henry on securing tonight’s debate on USDAW’s freedom from fear campaign—and I pay tribute to USDAW for its great work in promoting such ideas.
It is important to recognise the personal commitment that Hugh Henry has shown, particularly through his member’s bill proposal to extend the application of the tougher penalties in the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 to other workers, to trying to ensure that workers are given better protection from assault and injury. As other members have said, that proposal is backed by Unite, USDAW and a wide range of other trade unions. It was right to create new specific offences for assaulting or obstructing emergency workers, and we are now seeing convictions under that act. As the freedom from fear campaign makes clear, we need to ensure that workers are similarly protected when they are employed in any profession that involves providing a face-to-face service to the public.
Last year, the Scottish crime and justice survey found that, among adults whose jobs involve contact with the general public, 35 per cent have experienced verbal or physical abuse and 7 per cent have experienced physical abuse. When one considers the number of workers involved, that is a huge figure.
In the case of retail workers, the greater demands that are being placed on how they interact with the public can lead to tense, and even threatening, situations. I guess that not many MSPs are often challenged for ID, but such challenges are having to be made more and more. In effect, we are asking shop workers to police licensing restrictions on the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Although that is necessary, shop workers are being presented with the challenge of having to refuse to sell goods to people who might well not be in a sober state—as Margo MacDonald pointed out—but are determined to obtain the goods that they want to purchase. I think that Hugh Henry is also right that when mistakes are made in carrying out that policing responsibility, the responsibility for the mistake cannot rest simply with the shop worker in question. The new responsibilities can easily lead to verbal abuse.
Like others, I have witnessed such situations—indeed, I have witnessed two in the past week alone. One involved someone being refused the sale of cigarettes; the other involved a person who had come into a cafe with alcohol being asked to leave, which ended up in racist abuse. Unfortunately, the new responsibilities can lead to violence as well, which is why tougher penalties need to be in place. The Scottish Government is not always in agreement with us on ensuring that there are adequate penalties for offending, but on this issue I hope that we can achieve consensus.
New penalties are not always the answer; education must be involved, too, as the Community union showed in its campaign on protection for betting shop workers. In retail in particular, we must educate the public about the existence of the think 25 policy on the sale of alcohol, as the motion suggests, and ensure that staff receive appropriate training on how to deal with such situations. We have proposed the roll-out of a mandatory challenge 25 scheme for the purchase of alcohol, covering all retailers. We hope that that will help to change the culture of buying alcohol by making it the norm to prove one’s age when alcohol is purchased. Along with education campaigns, that measure will, we hope, reduce the number of assaults on staff.
Unfortunately, education on its own is unlikely to work. That was made clear to me a few years ago when there was a spate of attacks involving serious assaults on bus drivers in Aberdeen. Despite the great negative publicity that was created by coverage of those incidents, there were repeat offences. That is why we need education and enforcement, and a partnership approach on the part of everyone who is involved in dealing with such issues. We must give other workers the new protections that are rightly now afforded to emergency workers. That is the approach that Hugh Henry has adopted in the motion and in his proposed bill, and I hope that Parliament will show its commitment to dealing with such important issues by supporting not only the motion but the proposed bill.
17:36
I too congratulate Hugh Henry on his motion and on initiating this debate. I also congratulate USDAW on its freedom from fear campaign and note other trade union campaigns to protect workers, such as that being run by Community on behalf of betting shop workers. Those campaigns and others in support of fire fighters who are trying to save lives in our communities, health service workers, benefits staff and local authority workers are welcome and necessary. As long as violence persists and workers are subjected to widespread abuse and threats of violence in our shops, public services, and leisure facilities, such campaigns deserve our support.
The freedom from fear campaign has made a difference. In the UK, it has contributed to the long-term drop in reported incidents since it began but, as we have heard, there is a difference in Scotland, where there has been a 78 per cent increase in recorded incidents of violence and abuse during the past three years.
We cannot be sure about the true level of verbal abuse and threats because of massive under-reporting. It is concerning that the problem seems to be worse in Scotland, where four out of five shop workers have reported verbal abuse and two out of five have reported threats of violence in the past year. Those threats can be to communities and take the form of racist attacks, as happened in my community. Perhaps the level of reporting reflects a developing problem in Scotland, which means that the Scottish Government should look at its duty to encourage and provide better support through community safety plans.
There is clearly a problem with age-restricted sales. I welcome the motion’s recognition that we need to take a partnership approach. Sting operations have their place, but a long-term solution depends on co-operation from retailers. Some retailers have been proactive in that—I congratulate the Co-op and Tesco on their participation—but others seem to be reluctant. Some were even in denial until the campaign highlighted the facts. I hope that those retailers will think seriously about their role in protecting their staff.
We must also recognise that such problems are not confined to the workplace; workers who live in the communities in which they work can be intimidated outside the workplace, for example if they have refused to serve a particular customer. There are also issues to do with the involvement of organised crime in shoplifting—the most prominent gang is based in Scotland. The Scottish Government needs to pay more attention to those issues. I call on the minister to take early action and to consider the suggestions that have been made.
It is important that we all challenge the kind of behaviour we are discussing; no one can say, “It’s nothing to do with me.” We need action, and the partnership that I spoke about earlier is important. I urge the Scottish Government to play a key role in that partnership and to work with trade unions and employers to make shops in Scotland safer places to go into.
17:45
I thank Hugh Henry for providing us with the opportunity to debate these extremely serious issues, and I thank members from all parties who have taken part in the debate. The motion is extremely wide and covers a number of areas. I will do my best to focus on the key issues.
As many members have said, violence is never acceptable. The person who commits a violent act—whether it is an act of physical violence or verbal abuse—is primarily responsible for his or her actions. It is important to start from that principle. It is particularly concerning when the violence is directed at those who are simply doing their job, on pretty low wages in many cases, to provide a service courteously to the public.
We are taking significant steps across society as a whole to tackle violence, abuse and antisocial behaviour, and significant investments of taxpayers’ money have been made in policing and community safety. We have record numbers of police officers on our streets, and the level of recorded crime is at its lowest since 1980, with the level of violent crime at its lowest since 1986. However, to ensure that our partners in the police, local government and the business community have the very best tools with which to tackle the issues, we are also investing significantly in new initiatives such as the violence reduction unit and in such bodies as the Scottish Business Crime Centre, to which I will return, as I believe that some of its measures are relevant to the subject and to members’ speeches.
I welcome the powerful contribution that USDAW’s freedom from fear campaign has made in highlighting the issue over several years and in providing support and advice to those who are affected. Since its launch in 2002, the campaign has done much for people in the sector, along with the annual respect for shop workers event, which took place in November. I advise Bill Wilson that I shall write to USDAW seeking a meeting to find out more about the campaign and the specific policy measures that USDAW believes might now be implemented to deliver what all members want to see. I will also hear its perspective on the issue.
We are clear about the impact of violence, abuse and antisocial behaviour in the retail sector. Some people have said that it is victimless crime, but it is patently not so—they could not be more wrong. Whenever there is a robbery, when someone is physically or verbally abused, or when a business goes to the wall due to crime, shoplifting or theft, there is also the cost of that, the hassle that that produces and the bureaucracy that is involved in putting things right, reporting the crime to the police, making the insurance claims and sorting out all the mess afterwards. The crime is therefore not victimless.
In her intervention on Hugh Henry, Margo MacDonald was right to point out that we must also look at what causes people to behave in that unacceptable way. We all recognise that, as Margo MacDonald and Richard Baker said, many people who behave in such a way may be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. That is no excuse, but it is important that we tackle those issues and help people to recover from their drug addiction. That is why, since the year began, I have meet recovering drug addicts in alcohol and drug partnerships in Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Inverclyde, Dumbarton, Glasgow and—this week—Irvine. Some of those drug users who are in recovery—in some cases, they have been in recovery for a couple of years—have told me, “Two years ago, when I was on the drugs, I would be out shoplifting now.” We all recognise that strategies such as the road to recovery—which, I am delighted to say, all parties support—must be implemented effectively. That will prevent the indefensible and pointless acts of violence and shoplifting that often take place to feed a drugs habit.
Margo MacDonald makes an important point about the importance of educating young people so that they behave with respect and do not display violent behaviour. We all have a role to educate people—all of us here are leaders who give a lead in our communities. I am sure that USDAW has a role to play as well. When I meet its representatives, I will pursue Margo MacDonald’s point and refer to her intervention as proof of the importance of that factor.
The Scottish Business Crime Centre has received around £770,000 of investment over the past three years and has provided excellent support. I want to touch on some of those practical measures, as members have asked about what has been done of late. The centre oversees the operation of the retailers against crime programme that operates in 20 towns and cities, which enables intelligence to be gathered by and shared between more than 600 stores nationally, which is invaluable. It is piloting the safer retail award in five areas throughout Scotland. The award, which is similar to the best bar none award, is aimed at ensuring best practice in the sale of age-restricted products. The centre’s safer areas scheme use retail radio networks to share information between shops. Further, the centre is working with the centre for healthy working lives to co-ordinate the Scottish betting industry working group that is specifically examining the difficulties that are faced by workers in that sector, which Bill Wilson mentioned.
We believe that test purchasing is an important and valuable initiative. As Bill Wilson said, it is intelligence based and is designed to expose the illegal activity that is undertaken by a small minority of rogue retailers. Test purchasing is effective, well planned and vital, and we want it to continue.
The motion refers to the need to work in partnership to develop strategies on underage sales. I am pleased to say that there already is an excellent partnership between the Government, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland and Young Scot. An example of the results of that partnership is the £50,000 that we have invested in the SBCC to promote the use of the Young Scot proof-of-age card. I am not sure that many of us here would have our age questioned. I am looking at Richard Baker, who I suppose must be the youngest member present by some way, but I think that it is safe to say that we are all over 25. Nevertheless, the issue that many members have raised is important. In investing £50,000 in the Young Scot proof-of-age card, I am conscious that it is effective, and considerably cheaper than the UK Government’s identity card scheme.
This has been an important debate on an important issue. The Scottish Government is committed to providing direct support and encouragement to those who seek to tackle retail crime. I am indebted to Mr Henry and to every member who has taken part in this debate. I believe that all the sentiments that have been expressed are worthy, and that we are united on these matters. I hope, therefore, that the work that will take place will serve to reduce the unacceptable levels of violence and abuse towards shop workers in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:54.
Margo MacDonald is right to mention some of the contributory factors. It would be foolish to suggest that alcohol and drug misuse is not a problem. Unfortunately, there are other issues that often lead to violence and abuse. I will come on to those.
There are flashpoints during the year. Christmas time is particularly stressful and difficult for shop workers. Many people are desperate to spend money—where they still have it. Sometimes the social norms of politeness and good manners fall by the wayside when people are harassed and looking to buy presents. Shop workers bear the brunt of that. They take abuse when someone is not able to get service as quickly as they expect, when an item is not in stock and for shoddy items that are produced by manufacturers on other continents. Shop workers are on the front line at such stressful times.
Margo MacDonald mentioned alcohol. One of the most difficult problems that shop workers face relates to alcohol sales. USDAW is fully behind the measures that have been taken in that area over the years—not only in the Parliament and by ministers in different Administrations. All of us back demands for shop workers, shopkeepers and those who sell alcohol to act responsibly; there is no doubt that that should happen. However, we must also consider the fact that shop workers are in a particularly difficult situation. Often it is difficult to determine a person’s age. I welcome the measures that many responsible retailers have taken on proof of identity, but those can cause difficulties.
I was recently at a Morrisons store in my constituency, where I witnessed a shop worker asking someone to prove their age. The person got abusive and aggressive simply because they had been asked to prove their age. The shop worker was doing their job properly, but they faced abuse as a result.
It is not right that shop workers have to take full responsibility if a mistake is made when alcohol is sold to someone who is underage. There has to be a strategy by retailers, the police, local authorities and others. Shop workers need to be protected.
I have mentioned just some examples of the difficulties that shop workers face. Unfortunately, the issue persists, but we have a union that is prepared to support its members, and it is incumbent on us as elected representatives to ensure that the law, local authorities and responsible organisations also fully support them. No shop worker should have to face violence and abuse—it is about time that we put an end to that.
17:16
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I thank Hugh Henry, as others have done, for bringing the debate to the chamber.
The statistics that we are presented with are deeply worrying. USDAW figures show that, across the UK, a shop worker is verbally or physically abused or threatened with abuse every minute. We have been on our feet now for about 28 minutes, so while we have been talking in this debate about 30 shop workers have been abused in some way.
Other speakers have mentioned the work that USDAW has done on the freedom from fear campaign, and it is right that we continue to support the campaign and our shop workers who are on the front line.
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a proud member of USDAW, and add my congratulations to Hugh Henry on securing the debate.
Members of all parties have agreed that every worker should be able to do their work without fear of being abused, verbally or physically. We know that people who work with the public can be at risk of abuse. Indeed, the Parliament recognised the particular risk to which emergency workers were exposed by introducing legislation to increase the penalties for such abuse in the hope that that would deter it. As I was a member of the Justice 1 Committee that oversaw consideration of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, I am extremely proud of that piece of legislation. However, even as we took evidence on the bill, we recognised that many other workers could face similar threats to their safety. One such group was shop workers.
The figures on the increase in violence and abuse that shop workers suffer, which Hugh Henry highlights in his motion, are a disgrace and we cannot ignore them. I congratulate USDAW on the work that it has done: first, to highlight the issue; secondly, to support shop workers in avoiding risk and, sadly, in how to deal with the aftermath of such abuse; and thirdly, to ensure that the issue is taken seriously by everyone, with the aim of reducing the number of violent incidents.
I want to refer to two incidents that occurred in my constituency recently that highlight aspects of the behaviour that has been discussed. The first involves a young person who attempted to buy cigarettes in a well-known supermarket. When the sales assistant asked for proof of age, because she believed that the young person was underage, she was met with verbal abuse. Eventually, the teenager left the shop, only to return 15 minutes later with her father, who shouted and swore at the assistant while trying to buy the cigarettes. As the assistant did not know whether the cigarettes were for the teenager, she again refused to sell them. Eventually, the man and his daughter left the store, leaving the assistant badly shaken, but the issue did not end there; the man phoned the company’s headquarters and insisted that the assistant be “dealt with”. Thankfully, the store manager backed up his assistant. I recount that story because it is important that employers and managers support their staff and offer them as much help as possible to avoid such abusive situations arising. Unfortunately, that is not always what happens.
My second example involves a checkout assistant who was faced with a customer who was trying to buy a bottle of alcohol. The checkout assistant knew that, as he is under 16 years of age, he had to check with the supervisor, but she was busy so, because he thought it might cause problems, he decided just to sell the alcohol. The problem was exacerbated when it was discovered that the customer was under 18. In that case, effective training was necessary—not, as Hugh Henry and others have said, condemnation of an under-pressure checkout operator.
Both cases relate to age-proscribed situations that frequently lead to difficulties and possibly abuse, so I whole-heartedly support Hugh Henry’s call to raise the profile of the think 25 campaign. I hope that the minister will also support it and say what the Scottish Government will do to promote it.
Tonight, we seek to support shop workers in Scotland to do their jobs without fear. I hope that our efforts will ensure that the increase in violence to which Hugh Henry’s motion refers will be stopped and that, in future, all shop workers will be protected.
17:41
I am delighted to hear of the measures that have been taken to address offences that have already been committed, but I am interested in the prevention of such inhumanity towards my fellow men and my fellow women. USDAW, representing the workers who are abused, can play a role in re-educating children about how they behave towards folk who are just doing a job of work.
I commend Hugh Henry for securing the debate and highlighting an important issue that deserves, and indeed requires, our immediate and utmost attention.
Many shop workers in Scotland work in a threatening environment. By bringing their circumstances to the fore, we can help to reverse the shocking increase in violence that has been shown towards them. Over the past three years, the number of incidents of violence and abuse towards Scottish shopkeepers has risen by 78 per cent. Every minute of the working day, a shopkeeper or shop worker is threatened physically, attacked or verbally abused. There are about 13,000 incidents a year, which is simply unacceptable.
Those citizens—our people—are simply trying to get on with a day’s work, and more must be done to help them. No employee should have to feel intimidated just for doing his or her job. I welcome the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Worker’s freedom from fear campaign and its work to raise awareness among shoppers and workers alike, that the antisocial behaviour that is exhibited towards them is not only unacceptable but against the law. I hope that, through our support, we can give shop workers the fortitude to speak out against such abusive behaviour, rather than accept it as part of the job, particularly—as Hugh Henry mentioned—at Christmas or during the Christmas sales.
The freedom from fear campaign has rightly recognised that the origin of most attacks is rooted in the sale of alcohol. The conflict that arises from shopkeepers and shop workers policing the sale of age-restricted products is frequently the starting point of the abuse that they receive. It leaves shopkeepers and shop workers in a vulnerable situation, in which they must choose between potentially causing conflict or risking prosecution in the event that a mistake is made.
The think 25 policy, which the motion highlights, can help hugely, by insisting that people who are aged below 25 but above 18 will be required to produce photographic identification when purchasing alcoholic drinks. The introduction of the challenge 21 initiative proved to be successful in reducing the number of underage sales. By raising the identification age, we can expect even more improvement. Large firms such as Asda are already enforcing the scheme and are helping to address the stigma that surrounds age checking, and to reduce the conflict that it can cause. With nine out of 10 underage drinkers believing that local convenience stores offer them the best chance to be served alcohol, we must promote the think 25 initiative throughout all stores. That will help to cut down underage drinking and to reduce the level of offence that might be caused by asking for identification and, with that, the incidence of aggression that is shown to shopkeepers.
By reducing the incidence of unwarranted attacks we will be doing a great service to all those Scots who, on a day-to-day basis, face isolation and threats to which no one in the workplace should be subjected. In doing that, we will help to create not just a safer working environment but a safer shopping experience for customers. That would correct a problem that for too long has gone unresolved.
I repeat my congratulations to Hugh Henry on securing the debate. I am particularly happy to support his motion, having seen for myself the problem that exists in my constituency, and recognising the fact that ways must be found to resolve it.
17:20
I congratulate Hugh Henry on securing this members’ business debate on USDAW’s freedom from fear campaign. I am a member of USDAW, so the issue is of concern to me. More important, the issue is of concern to workers in my constituency and throughout Scotland.
Every worker has the right to be treated with respect. Every worker has the right to a working life that is free from fear, verbal abuse, threats, bullying, intimidation and assault. However, as Hugh Henry said, the reality is quite different. The motion highlights the 78 per cent increase in attacks on Scottish workers during the past three years. Although the trend at United Kingdom level is downward, recent figures from USDAW show that one in 10 shop workers has been assaulted while at work and that one in three experiences verbal abuse on a monthly basis. Those of us who visit the shops—probably a little too frequently—will not have found it hard to see shop workers having to deal with difficult customers and will know that the statistics represent a reality that shop workers experience every day.
The statistics should shock everyone, but the debate is about not just statistics but everyday life for workers up and down our country. It is about the shop worker who constantly faces a barrage of abuse for refusing to sell alcohol to an underage customer, the train conductor who is threatened by drunks who refuse to buy a ticket, the bar worker who is attacked at the end of a shift by a customer and is too scared to go back into work, or the petrol station attendant who is terrified after being robbed at knifepoint. Those are everyday stories of everyday people in Scotland.
Too many workers who serve the public face a climate of intimidation, threats and violence at work, which takes a terrible toll on them. Such a working environment is detrimental not just to those individuals and their families, but to employers who are left with the consequences of low staff morale, higher sickness levels and the loss of skilled and experienced workers who have decided that enough is enough.
We do not need to rely on the newspaper headlines to know that workplace violence is a real issue. Every member will have had first-hand experience of constituents or friends who have been subjected to violence at work. I thank USDAW and other trade unions that have campaigned on the issue, such as Community and ASLEF—the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—because as a result of their campaigns we should all be well aware of the devastating impact of a climate of fear in workplaces throughout Scotland.
The time has come to do something about the issue. In the previous session of the Parliament, the Scottish Executive made a welcome start with the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, but the most recent figures show that freedom from fear is far from being the reality for many Scottish workers. I know from speaking to USDAW members in my constituency that they want workplaces in which everyone can feel safe, valued and respected. That is why I am pleased to support Hugh Henry’s proposal for a workers (aggravated offences) (Scotland) bill, which would extend the tighter protection under the 2005 act in relation to criminal law and offer protection to every public-facing worker in Scotland.
I take this opportunity to congratulate USDAW on its award-winning freedom from fear campaign, which has opened our ears and eyes to the reality of working life for many people in Scotland. The campaign has been successful because it has involved a close partnership between employers, the Government, the police, the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, who have ensured that the issue is placed at the top of the agenda and have worked together to tackle the serious problem of workplace violence and its consequences for workers, employers and communities.
I look forward to a day when every worker is free from fear. Until then, it is up to us to do as much as we can do to make that vision a reality. I hope that members will support not just Hugh Henry’s motion but his bill, when it is introduced in the Parliament. I hope that the Scottish Government will listen to the experiences of workers throughout Scotland and work in partnership with Scotland’s trade unions, the police and employers to end the climate of violence and fear that far too many Scottish shop workers and other workers have to endure every day.
17:25
Let me join other members in congratulating Hugh Henry on lodging the motion.
We all agree that violence against any individual is completely unacceptable. Random violence, which is happily not too common in our society, is profoundly unpleasant. How much more unpleasant is it, then, for a shop worker who is the subject of violence in their place of work, knowing that they have to return day after day to the same place? The psychological pressure must be so much greater under those circumstances.
During the campaign against violence in betting shops, I visited several betting shops in Paisley and heard some pretty horrendous stories. I am sure that Hugh Henry has heard the same stories, which brought home to me forcefully just how important it is to have a campaign and to take action against violence in the place of work. The USDAW freedom from fear campaign is therefore very much to be welcomed, and I am sure that the minister will agree to meet the USDAW representatives to discuss it.
I question Hugh Henry’s motion in respect of test purchases. It is important to expose illegal sales, and I believe that the campaign was supported by the previous Administration—indeed, Andy Kerr rolled it out. It is a little unfair to characterise it as involving “sting operations”. I am sure that the minister can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that test purchases are intelligence led and are carried out by the police only when they have good evidence to suggest that illegal sales are going on.
Can the member tell me whether USDAW goes into schools and similar places to talk to pupils about how they should behave towards people who work in shops?