Emergency Workers (Protection)
The next item of business is a debate on protection of emergency workers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I am pleased to open this debate on protection of emergency workers, which is an important part of our commitment to reducing crime and protecting communities. At present, we are consulting on our proposals for legislation to create a specific offence of attacking an emergency worker—or those assisting them, including other workers—in an emergency situation.
Why is the legislation necessary? As members will be aware, there have been too many shocking assaults on emergency workers in recent months and years. They have been shot at with air rifles and bombarded with bricks and stones. Chemicals have been sprayed in their faces and fireworks have been thrown at them. Only last month, a crew that was attending a refuse fire in Coatbridge was subjected to an intense physical attack that left one firefighter needing hospital treatment for a leg injury. Another was struck on the head with a bottle. The crew was forced to withdraw and return with a police escort and their appliance was so badly damaged that it had to be taken out of service. I am sure that all members join me in condemning such attacks.
Emergency workers provide essential services to society in difficult and dangerous circumstances and attacks on them are totally and absolutely unacceptable. The critical point is that assaulting emergency workers or those who assist them not only puts their lives at risk but puts at risk the lives of those whom they are trying to help. We cannot tolerate that, which is why we are proposing legislation that would create specific offences of assaulting, obstructing or hindering emergency workers, and those who have stepped forward to assist them, in emergency situations. Our proposal is similar to the existing specific offence of assaulting or obstructing a police officer in the exercise of his or her duty, which is contained in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.
We propose to cover, in addition to the traditional blue-light services, staff in accident and emergency departments of hospitals and workers who are responding to environmental emergencies; more groups may be added as a result of consultation responses. People who assist emergency workers in responding at an emergency, including other workers, would, as I said, also be protected. We propose to define emergency situations as those in which there is an immediate threat to human life or a risk of substantial damage to buildings or the environment. We believe that significant and immediate threats to human health, such as the contamination of water supplies, should also be covered. Such situations are tense and fraught and people's lives are at risk, so workers who act in such circumstances must be free from physical and mental distractions in order that they can do their job.
On the basis of that definition, would the minister be minded to include those who work in accident and emergency departments in our hospitals, where life and death are clearly major issues?
As colleagues are reminding me, I said that. It is our ambition that the legislation would cover those who work in the accident and emergency departments of our hospitals.
I am confident that those steps will fundamentally strengthen the protection that emergency workers deserve and that they will ensure that workers who are placed in emergency situations do not have to endure what was faced in Coatbridge and what is faced in too many other places.
Has any thought been given to targets for police response times, given the fact that part of the problem in Coatbridge was the police response time? I have now received an answer from the police on that, but I wonder whether that is an issue that the bill might consider.
Whether the bill covers that issue or not, we intend not just to address issues of legislation and the courts, but to introduce a wider package of measures that are designed to reduce the effects as well as the number of such incidents. I will come to that in a few moments.
I am well aware that other workers who deliver public services can be subject to assault or abuse and that there are calls to extend specific statutory protection to all such groups. We have considered that possibility very carefully. Although, at first glance, it might seem to be an attractive and straightforward solution—it seemed like that to me at first glance—our detailed consideration has led us to conclude that going down that road would actually weaken protection of those workers. Everyone is protected from assault by the present law, and the Lord Advocate has made it clear in guidance to procurators fiscal that it is an aggravating factor in an attack if the victim is a worker who is delivering a public service.
There will obviously be a lot of agreement with what the minister has said. Does he agree that all of us, as elected members, have a responsibility to play our part and, in particular, that we must not criticise or condemn any activity that is undertaken by the police in investigating any allegation of an attack on any of the workers that he has described?
I would hope that that would be the case, although I am interested to know why Fergus Ewing asked that question. Perhaps that will come out in further debate.
The steps that the Lord Advocate has taken with the procurators fiscal to ensure that such aggravation is recognised mean that such attacks will be treated more seriously and that the likelihood of a trial in our highest courts, along with tougher penalties, is greater. Our initial monitoring of the Lord Advocate's guidance has confirmed that fiscals and the courts are complying with the guidance and are treating attacks on public service workers as being very serious offences.
Recent examples of the practical effect of the guidance are set out in our consultation paper. Assaults on public service workers are regularly prosecuted in the sheriff courts and sheriffs are consistently acknowledging the aggravated and serious nature of such attacks. Often, the assault will attract a sentence of imprisonment, with sheriffs making it plain that such unacceptable conduct will not be tolerated and that workers have the support of the courts and the Executive.
I recognise that the consultation document sets out the measures that have been taken by the Lord Advocate and procurators fiscal. I also note that it refers to other measures that the Executive might be prepared to take to educate people and make clear the Executive's position on such attacks on other public sector workers. Could the minister outline those further?
Having discussed such measures with trade union colleagues, employers and professional bodies in the past few months, I have found out about a number of good examples from Scotland and the rest of the UK. They include work that is being done in Fife, where firefighters go into schools to talk to young pupils and explain their role in the community, and other work that is being done to challenge some of the habits that relate to deliberate attacks on emergency service workers. Later in my speech, I will cover more of the good work that is being done with regard to education and the promotion of our message.
The common law is flexible: it can deal with attacks on public service workers whatever the circumstances. However, if we introduce a specific offence of statutory aggravation for attacks on all public service workers, that flexibility will be removed. The burden of proof could be greater and there would have to be a statutory template that the offence would have to fit in order for it to be successfully prosecuted.
That is not the only problem. With a statutory aggravation, we would have to set out in statute a list of workers who would be covered. When I first considered the matter, that struck me as being quite a simple task, but I can assure members that it is more difficult than might be expected. Members might have in their heads a number of examples of public service workers who would be included in the list, such as teachers, health care workers, social workers and train and bus drivers. However, other groups would point out that they serve the community as well and should therefore be included. I am sure that everyone could think of such groups of workers. However, if we added to the list everyone whom we could think of—which would also involve defining their jobs—it is inevitable that, however long the list ended up, some groups would be left off and the impression would be given that they were less valued than other workers.
At the same time, because the list would be extensive, there would be no special protection for the people who are most in need of it: the emergency workers whom we are discussing today, whose jobs constantly bring them into difficult and dangerous situations in which the lives of others are at risk, in which they need to respond quickly and in which their visibility makes them a target for mindless thuggery.
I acknowledge the serious problems of attacks on essential workers such as teachers, doctors, bus drivers, social workers and many other workers in both the public and private sectors who come into contact with the general public. That is why, as Bristow Muldoon pointed out, I made it clear in my foreword to the recent consultation paper that the legislation that we are proposing cannot stand alone, and that we propose to develop a package of non-statutory measures to help to minimise the incidence of such attacks. It is a fundamental human right that all workers should be able to go about their legitimate business without fear of attack or abuse; society as a whole has a responsibility to respect that.
I am pleased to say that much is already being done to provide advice and training for staff on these issues. The national health service in Scotland, for example, is launching its zero tolerance campaign, which consists of a series of posters that are aimed at raising public awareness about assaults on NHS staff. That will be accompanied by two training videos: one reminds employers of their obligations to protect the health and safety of their staff and the other is designed to help staff to anticipate and deal with aggression in their clients. In addition, a new medical services contract will provide support to staff in dealing with violent patients.
In transport, the Executive is supporting the installation of closed-circuit television cameras in buses, trains and railway stations. We have also provided funding for their use in hospitals and schools. Furthermore, CCTV is central to the Scottish safe city centres campaign, which was launched in November last year and which places particular emphasis on protection of shop workers.
I have held many meetings with trade unions and professional bodies to listen to what they are saying and to find out their views on the best way forward. A lay member of the Scottish Trades Union Congress has just been seconded to work with the Scottish Executive on developing a package of measures to protect workers.
I think that it is clear that many employers share our concerns about the safety of their work force and officials and I look forward to working in partnership with them and the trade unions over the next few months and beyond on development and implementation of the measures that I have described.
We aim to prevent assaults from happening in the first place, and we will consider practical measures, including guidance and training of managers and staff and education of children from an early age about their civic responsibilities. We intend to raise public awareness that attacks on workers are offences against civilised society and that they will be severely punished. Where assaults occur, we want to build on the work that we have already done to improve evidence gathering, and to ensure that incidents will be properly recorded and reported.
It is intolerable that any worker should be assaulted in the course of their employment. We want to make that clear and to take the most appropriate steps to ensure that all workers are valued and protected as they should be. We believe that our proposals for legislation to protect emergency workers and other workers who are assisting them, taken together with our wider package of action to protect all workers, constitute an effective way of doing that. It is a comprehensive approach to tackling a complex and difficult situation. We must act and we must do so appropriately if we are to get the result that we need.
The Government in Scotland is determined to work hard to build communities that are based on respect and compassion. Our measures to protect those who act to protect us all are part of the practical action that we are taking to deliver on the commitments that we have made to the people of Scotland.
I am sure that all of us, and indeed all right-thinking people, will agree with all the sentiments that the Minister for Finance and Public Services has expressed. There is something particularly repugnant and repulsive about assaults on a person who is seeking to help the assailant. Usually, such incidents happen when the thugs concerned are under the influence of drink or drugs. I suspect that those people will not be detaining themselves too long on a detailed study of the consultation paper, worthy though it is.
The Scottish National Party argues for an extension of the statutory recognition that is currently given to the position of the police, nurses and doctors. I make a particular plea about the position of psychiatric nurses. The patients that they receive for treatment are often brought to them by several police officers, who are armed with powers of control and restraint. Unlike the police, psychiatric nurses do not have handcuffs or other apparatus that are designed to ensure control and restraint: however, they must still manage violence and aggression so I hope that their position will be recognised. Shop workers were also mentioned.
There is recognition in the consultation paper that the common law is based on principle and that it is flexible. We should bear that in mind, as well as the problems of definition that have been raised.
On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the guidelines on and the examples of stiff appropriate sentences for general thuggery and such behaviour. I cite the example of a nurse who was subject to a particularly unpleasant incident in a hospital in central Scotland. Two individuals were attending a friend of theirs, who was receiving treatment. Apparently, they blew up surgical gloves like balloons and wheeled each other round a nursing station in a wheelchair. The nurse told them three times to leave the area and to return to reception because they were endangering safety. Her requests were met with abuse. The men returned three times to the nursing station, which was 100ft from the reception area, and told the nurse, "Watch who you're talking to." When she warned them a third time, they threatened to "get" her outside and crowded her in the nursing station. The nurse, who had worked for 16 years, including stints in inner-city hospitals in London, said that she had never been more scared in her life.
I am pleased to say that the two individuals were arrested by the police and put into a cell in order to reflect on their behaviour over the weekend. They were charged and appeared in court on the Monday. Then, however, representations were made on their behalf to the local elected representative. The First Minister decided that he would take action on their behalf. According to reports in the Sunday Mail and the Daily Mail last September, the First Minister intervened, by writing to the local police. His letter was reported by respectable and responsible journalists, without contradiction, and the First Minister is said to have referred to the incident that I have just described as a "minor matter".
The nurse has said that she was never more scared in her life and that she was afraid to leave the hospital for fear that the men's threat would be implemented. According to the reports, which have not been contradicted, the view was also expressed that the First Minister stated, implied or suggested that the police might have better things to do with their time than to arrest and lock up these two men.
If, rightly, the Scottish Executive argues—as the Minister for Finance and Public Services has argued—that such threats are despicable, how could the First Minister have argued for a moment that the conduct of those men was of minor importance and undeserving of police time? The letter that he wrote was not simply a request for information. That would have been in order—we are entitled to ask for information from the Lord Advocate or, indeed, the police—but surely none of us would contemplate expressing views that suggest that what the police are doing is wrong.
I suggest that a number of things should happen. First, because a criminal trial is a matter of public law in which justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, as soon as someone is charged the case becomes a matter of public right and the public have a right to know. I suggest, therefore, that the First Minister's letter be put into the public domain in a redacted form. Secondly, there must be an investigation into the matter. Thirdly, the First Minister must do what he has failed to do thus far and make a detailed statement on it.
As long as the First Minister fails to take any of the action that I have described, a cloud will hang over him and the Executive. Last Sunday, the First Minister stated in a newspaper that since he was 14 years old he has had a commitment to transparency and openness. Does that fine principle apply to his conduct and apparent intervention in a police matter?
I will conclude by showing the chamber a headline that appeared in the Sunday Mail, a fine newspaper that is committed to standing up for the ordinary person, even against the most powerful man in the land. The headline asks:
"Why did First Minister stick up for neds"?
We are waiting for the answer.
Today's debate on the protection of emergency service workers is important. At the outset, it is only right and proper for us to pay tribute to the men and women throughout Scotland who on a daily basis are employed in front-line duties as part of the emergency services.
It is a core principle of any civilised society that emergency workers should have the confidence and assurance that in the course of carrying out their frequently dangerous duties they will be protected by the full force of the law. The fact that with increasing frequency so many of those dedicated public sector workers are finding themselves under threat of abuse and attack is a reflection of the state of lawlessness in Scotland today.
A Unison survey from 2002 highlighted the extent of the problem when it revealed that an extremely worrying 40 per cent of nurses and NHS staff were subject to physical and verbal abuse. Contained in that figure are incidents of attacks on hospital staff and other claims of unacceptable behaviour, such as the incident reported last year at Wishaw general hospital to which reference has been made. In that incident, nursing staff complained that they had been threatened, subjected to verbal abuse and obstructed from carrying out their duties by two men in accident and emergency. In Coatbridge and other parts of Lanarkshire and central Scotland, hoax calls to and attacks on fire brigade workers provide a further example of the kind of reprehensible behaviour to which emergency workers are subjected. Clearly, this situation must not be allowed to continue and must be addressed. The question is how best that can be done.
In the first instance, the Scottish Conservatives support extending to other emergency workers, as well as to those persons who are assisting an emergency worker in an emergency situation, the statutory protection that is at present given to the police. We would make it a crime to obstruct those workers from carrying out their duties, which involve attempting to provide the public with protection.
It is recommended that the new statutory offence of attacking a public sector worker should carry a maximum penalty of nine months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £5,000. We are concerned that the full effect of that new measure will be diluted by the consequence of automatic release whereby, even if the maximum sentence were to be imposed, the offender would serve only about four and a half months. Therefore, we again call on the Executive to use the power available to it to end automatic sentence discounting.
We agree with the consultation's definition of emergency workers, which includes mountain rescue teams such as the Trossachs search and rescue team which, as part of its duties, is on standby to tackle terrorism. We also share the Executive's view that the new statutory protection should not be extended to all public service workers. Under common law, all Scots are protected from assault. The flexibility of common law means that there is no maximum penalty and that individual circumstances can be taken into account by the court. The system works well and is able to evolve over time. However, when it comes to dealing with violent patients or pupils, the Scottish Conservatives believe that additional protective measures should be put in place.
We have publicly backed Unison's idea of red and yellow cards for those who abuse NHS staff. That could lead to the banning of individuals from NHS premises. Executive statistics reveal that there is an attack on a school worker every 15 minutes. We therefore believe that teachers should have the right to refuse to teach any pupil who has a proven record of violence in school.
New technology, such as that currently being pioneered to transform mobile phones into personal alarms and location devices, should also be explored, in order to give teachers, psychiatric nurses and other public sector workers who are potentially at risk a degree of protection in situations where they are vulnerable and isolated.
Today's debate is without doubt well intentioned. Although, on the whole, we welcome the measures proposed, they should not be allowed to obscure the fact that attacks are on the increase—not just against public sector workers but against the public at large. The only way to combat that effectively is to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to crime, with more visible policing on our streets.
Let me start by saying something that I think is relevant to this debate: laws are not the only answer. A package of measures is required. That package should concentrate not simply on ensuring that proper provision is made in law to deal with offenders but on ensuring that people are caught or, if possible, encouraged not to commit the offences in the first place. In the kind of situations that we are talking about, there can sometimes be problems in identifying the perpetrators and doing something about them. We have to bear that in mind.
An interesting survey was carried out by Unison on the percentages of the different sorts of staff who are subject to physical or verbal abuse. The figure for police officers was 28.4 per cent, which we might expect, given the nature of police work. The figure was 17.6 per cent for social workers and probation officers; 11.5 per cent for publicans and bar staff; 9.2 per cent for taxi drivers; and 8.9 per cent for nurses. The list continues down to teachers, for whom the figure is 3.5 per cent. The importance of the list is that it indicates that, if we move away from a consideration of only emergency workers, it is difficult to define things in terms of public service. People who work in bars provide a public service of a sort. It is not the same sort of public service as that provided by nurses, doctors and medical staff, but those bar staff are subject to the same kind of attack. The distinction that means that some sets of workers get enhanced protection is an important one to consider.
There is something that particularly baffles the mind about violent assaults on emergency public service workers. It is just possible, I think, to comprehend why a bored youth, perhaps lacking the imagination to see the consequences of his actions, might want to throw stones at a train. That is not to downgrade such actions, but having a certain understanding of how such things arise might suggest methods of trying to stop them. However, the rationale behind attacking a paramedic or fire crew engaged in saving life frankly defies understanding.
As always, there are statistical uncertainties—
I am a little puzzled by Robert Brown's analogy that we can perhaps understand why someone might throw stones at a train, given that the consequences of such actions are severe not only for the train driver but potentially for many hundreds of passengers.
In no sense was I excusing such actions. I was trying to say that it is important that we try to put ourselves into the mind of the people who do such things. By doing that, we can see the different sorts of situations that need to be considered. I was very careful to say that in no sense did I mean to downgrade such attacks. It is important that all such offences are dealt with properly.
Attacks on trains are common-law offences. The common law, which other members have already mentioned, is quite well placed to deal with aggravations of that sort. Where there is a risk to public life such as in attacks on trains—which Bristow Muldoon rightly referred to—or when stones are thrown at buses, the common law is able to take account of such aggravations and deal with them with quite severe sentences. Following the Lord Advocate's instructions in that regard, severe sentences have been passed.
I know from my personal background—I was originally a procurator fiscal depute some years ago—that the specific offences under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 attract heavy sentences. Those offences are dealt with seriously by the courts and have been regarded seriously over the years. I have no doubt that the new offence that the Executive rightly proposes will be dealt with in a similar fashion by the courts once the legislation goes through.
Part of the answer to the problem is to strengthen the law. We fully support giving emergency workers and those who assist them similar protection to that which is given to police officers. To a degree, such sentences send out an important message that is noted by groups that are susceptible to that kind of offence. It is almost in folklore that, when there was an outbreak of knife crime in Glasgow some years ago, the heavy sentences that the courts imposed at that time had the effect in changing attitudes and in stopping that particular offence.
I do not underrate the ability of legislative provisions to send out such messages, but that can be only part of the answer. We also need to consider a number of other ways. The minister touched on that when he mentioned how fire officers visit schools to tell children about these things. I have seen some of those visits myself.
There must also be better preventive measures. Quite often, attacks on buses do not happen in isolation. The people who attack buses also carry out other offences in the vicinity, such as attacking shops. Collaboration among different sorts of emergency workers, public transport people and members of the public can do quite a bit to deal with such situations. Several experiments in England have shown how that sort of thing can be successfully done.
In addition, things can be done about personal protection. For instance, personal alarms and facilities such as CCTV cameras can be used at suitable times.
In addition to educative measures such as those that the fire services carry out and preventive measures to stop attacks happening, we need rehabilitative measures to bring people face to face with the consequences of their crimes. Like other Glasgow members, I recently received a report on the restorative justice pilot in Glasgow. Although the evidence is anecdotal to a degree, the report lists a number of examples of how bringing people face to face with the consequences of their crimes can clearly have an effect on their understanding and that of their associates.
The approach that the Executive has taken is the right one. The Executive has defined the situation for emergency workers as the essential core of the problem and lets the common law tackle the other hugely miscellaneous but very important areas that we have touched on. It also looks towards a number of other things to back up those approaches and make the thing happen.
I doubt that anybody in the Parliament would understate the importance of this serious problem, which must be tackled on all possible fronts. The Executive proposals are a step towards doing that. We need to consider all possible ideas to ensure that the proposals are effective and do the trick. In a society such as ours, it is not tolerable that people who are doing jobs in the emergency services should be subject to attacks that endanger both their lives and the lives of other people.
I support the Executive's proposals.
Presiding Officer, thank you for taking me early so that I can catch a train. I apologise to members for leaving the chamber immediately after my speech.
The word "unacceptable" is the one that is used most about the attacks on all public sector workers. Such attacks are unacceptable. We have to be practical and, although we are supporting the minister today, we think that we have to go a lot further.
I will address the issue of health workers—not so much paramedics and ambulance workers, because they have already been dealt with, but the people who work on health service premises such as hospitals, clinics and surgeries. During my years in community pharmacy, I had a lot of out-of-hours calls. Latterly, it got to the point where I had to have the police pick me up, stay with me and vet whoever was coming into the pharmacy. That is happening throughout society. As an employer I faced such incidents, but it was not acceptable for my staff to face them. At various points on pharmacy counters we installed panic buttons that were linked to an automatic line to the police.
I accept that someone in a hospital cannot walk about with a mobile phone; the phones have to be on the correct wavelength for security and the safety of instruments. It is awful to hear about the amount of physical and verbal abuse people have to suffer when they put themselves forward to serve us in health care. It is unacceptable.
Doctors have a particular difficulty because of their oath. They cannot easily refuse to treat anyone. Under the pharmacy contract, a pharmacist has to accept prescriptions. Even in Scots law, I believe, that overrides the right of a premises owner to evict someone because of their state, whether it is caused by drink or drugs. Many health professionals are having great difficulty with that issue.
The statement from the Royal College of Nursing notes simply that all health staff should be treated in the same way regardless of what they do. People have a right to be in a safe environment when they serve the public. There is a duty on the people who employ them to ensure that.
Another issue in the health service is the need to attract and retain staff. I know that many people who have worked in the health service have given up because they have had a fright—perhaps they have had to do a night shift and have had to go through a dark car park outside a hospital where undesirables are hanging around. Many hospital sites have multiple buildings and people can hang about in dark shadows, leaving staff terrified to move around. All those things turn staff away from the job.
I am talking not just about the staff but about the patients. In The Herald this morning, there was another story about a baby being snatched from a maternity unit. That can happen when someone is disturbed and, if someone could get that close to a baby, they could inject them with something or do all sorts of other silly things. Patients have the same rights as staff members and we have to look for solutions.
On the minister's comments about the responsibility of employers, we have to ask all health boards and trusts to employ accredited security operatives. Even if they are from outside the health service, they have to be accredited and know what they are doing. I hope that, if the minister speaks to his ministerial colleagues, we will get cross-department working on the issue.
All accident and emergency units should have 24-hour, seven-day cover. I have been in situations where patients or people accompanying patients into hospital have become abusive because of drink. Such people have to be vetted when they come through the door. That is not a job for our health professionals. All hospital maindoor entrances should be manned—even at night when usually only one door is open—so that people who are coming into the hospital can be vetted for their condition.
I fully support what the member says about those health service workers who work in specific buildings. What solutions would he provide for those who have to deliver the service in the community, sometimes in situations where they are vulnerable?
The answer has already been given. They should have panic devices, their vehicles should be locked and they should have the necessary systems to support them. It might be difficult to give everyone a policeman or a security guard, but risks should be assessed in a better way than they are at the moment.
The use of security guards would free up police time and would ensure an instant response—security guards would be on the premises and in the department and someone in trouble would not have to wait 10, 15 or 20 minutes for a policemen to turn up, by which time the damage could have been done. I ask the Minister for Finance and Public Services seriously to consider using security operatives. It would help to ease some of the burdens on the police force and would provide confidence not only for the staff who work in hospitals but for those families who report to us incidents in which a family member who is a patient has had a scare with a stranger in the building. We should consider spending some of the money that we are about to spend on health—it will be £8 billion a year by the end of the parliamentary session—on security operatives. We must provide our health workers with a safe and secure environment in which to deliver what they deliver for us.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have some reservations about the Executive's proposals, but I welcome any debate that seeks to give further attention to the important issues of community safety and how disorder expresses itself in our communities. We must listen closely to everyone in our local communities—those who live in them and those who work in them—on how disorder, aggression and violence impact on people's lives and their ability to deliver local services and create peaceful environments for people to live in. I also commend Paul Martin for the work that he has done on the issue. He has worked assiduously to bring it to the fore, particularly highlighting the needs of vulnerable workers.
I recognise the difficulties and the dangerous situations that emergency workers face. In particular, the police, who are our last line of defence, firefighters and ambulance workers face very difficult situations, especially in urban areas and at weekends, as the norm in their working lives rather than as the exception. It is scandalous that, at the point at which workers are often seeking to save lives, they can come under attack.
The problem is not only that such workers come under attack but that a culture of aggression and disorder exists. In my constituency, I have spoken to bus drivers, shop workers, those who work in schools and nurseries, housing officers, construction workers and caretakers, all of whom tell the same story. Most recently, I visited a prestigious business in my constituency. The Minister for Finance and Public Services will be glad to know that that business had only positive things to say about the economic environment in which it was working and nothing bad to say, no matter how hard I pressed, on Scottish Enterprise or, more broadly, the Scottish Executive. However, when I asked whether there was any other issue on which I should reflect, I was told that that business had a problem with a group of youths gathering outside and attacking its night-shift workers with bricks as they came into work. Even when I do not want to talk about antisocial behaviour, I am driven do so by those whom I meet.
We cannot get away from the facts that the issue is one for a broader group than only emergency workers and that it is part of the fabric of communities. It is not a special breed of people who attack ambulance workers and firefighters; they will have form in attacking their neighbours too. We know that attacks on emergency workers represent individual problems and distress, but it is equally important to realise that they have a more general impact on communities. Bus routes are taken off, firefighters are hindered when trying to get to a dangerous situation, and community health workers are unable to deliver their crucial service in some of our most vulnerable communities. That is at the centre of an understanding of the proposed legislation on antisocial behaviour.
The individual problem is serious, but it generates community problems that have a devastating effect on our ability to deliver on our policy objectives in communities where people who have fought to get houses now tell us that their only hope is to get out. That gives a strong message about what we have to do to regenerate local communities. It will be difficult to reverse spiralling fragility in communities if community regeneration and service delivery do not include a robust approach to disorder.
The issue can equally highlight the broader policing and management challenges of how disorder expresses itself. Controlling groups, identifying offenders, securing evidence and charging individuals are all necessary, regardless of whom the victim of an attack is. In that context, the proposals in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill become even more crucial. They are preventive in identifying early those who create problems, in deterring those who might be impressed by disorder among others and particularly in enabling groups to be dispersed. If members think about groups that regularly go to the same place and wilfully raise fires to bring in and then attack firefighters, they will begin to understand how a policy of dispersal of groups in particular areas can make a difference. At heart, there is a recognition that adults who throw their weight about in hospitals and in local shops do not emerge fully formed at the age of 25 but have developed in a culture that has not been robust enough, early enough.
However, I have concerns about the proposal for legislation to protect emergency workers and, in the time that I have left, I will try to highlight them. It does not include some of the most vulnerable workers who might be identified in the health service, such as women and low-paid workers, or vulnerable workers in the private sector, such as workers in shops in fragile communities, who absolutely deliver a public service. I worry that the proposal feeds the notion of a hierarchy of concerns about crime.
In the Parliament, there is a great deal of scepticism among the Opposition about the necessity of antisocial behaviour legislation, but the same people want more action against those who attack emergency workers and tough legislation on hate crimes. I understand the motive of marking out the seriousness of crimes, which I welcome, but there is a danger that if so many things are considered to be an aggravation, we will give out the message that the people who cannot bid up their experience or give their suffering a better name so that we will prioritise it will be left out. We must ensure that any attempts to classify particular crimes as aggravation are rooted in a policing and criminal justice system that gives value to all those who are victims of crime. We must take all antisocial behaviour seriously so that all of us can have confidence in the system that seeks to protect us.
The example that Robert Brown gave about being able to understand the young person who throws a stone because they might be bored reflects a desire sometimes to rationalise irrational behaviour in our local communities that we would not rationalise anywhere else. That is a fundamental issue for the antisocial behaviour legislation.
My final point is that what is proposed is important not just because of the impact that it will have on people's quality of life and their faith in the justice system, but because of its impact on our ability to ensure that public investment in the regeneration of communities and in the delivery of public services is not wasted by an inability to challenge all the things that tear away at local services and prevent people from doing what they really want to do, which is to live in peace in their communities and to have good-quality services for those around them.
It is clear from the debate so far that there is broad consensus among members of all parties on the unacceptability—as David Davidson put it—of antisocial behaviour against emergency workers. We are all united in our recognition of the need to do something fairly radical and positive to deal with the problem; I think that we are also united on the need to send out a clear signal that the Parliament will tackle such issues vigorously and seriously.
However, there are two or three issues that need to be emphasised. As the consultation paper makes clear, there will be major difficulties in crafting the proposed legislation. The paper refers specifically to how we define an emergency worker and an emergency situation; I will comment on that in a minute. There is also an issue around the profile of the offender. I will give two examples of that, both of which relate to a hospital accident and emergency department on a Saturday night.
As Margaret Jamieson pointed out to me recently after one of her visits to Crosshouse hospital, the first thing that is noticeable is that, very often, the people who are causing the trouble are not necessarily those who have come to be attended to, but those who are in attendance with them. Sometimes, particularly after a good drink on a Saturday night during which someone has been injured—typically, in Kilmarnock and various other places, in a fight—it is not just the person who has been cut, stabbed or injured and one other person who go to the hospital; the trip to accident and emergency becomes an evening out. There tends to be most trouble when there is a crowd, particularly when drink has been involved, and yet it is probably difficult to pick out one person as the troublemaker from all those people.
On prevention in accident and emergency departments, we need to consider measures such as having enforceable rules about who is admitted to the hospital. In general, the only people who need to be there are those who require medical attention and one or at the most two other people to lend them moral support and to ensure that they get home okay. We need to consider such matters, because although legislation is undoubtedly required, I suspect that it will not of itself be enough to tackle the problem.
For my second example about the offender's profile, I will refer again to the accident and emergency department on a typical Saturday night. Sometimes the offender does not match Johann Lamont's description, although I accept that, nine times out of 10, the people who will fall foul of the proposed legislation will have form and a track record of such behaviour at any time of day and in any condition, with or without drink or drugs.
Does Alex Neil agree with me and Johann Lamont that the proposed legislation is needed as part of a wider package? Will he join me in welcoming the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which will allow the police to disperse folk who congregate in inappropriate situations such as those that he describes?
We all agree on the need to tackle antisocial behaviour. The argument is about whether all the provisions in the bill are the best options. We will continue to have that debate about the bill, but there is no doubt that we are all united on the need to deal with antisocial behaviour.
Sometimes the offender does not fit the typical profile—the person does not have form or a record and is not normally aggressive. The offender could be extremely upset because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, or they could be a disturbed person—David Davidson mentioned that—who cannot help or control their behaviour. In crafting the legislation, we must be humanitarian. We must acknowledge that, sometimes, the offender does not engage compulsively in antisocial behaviour.
All those issues must be addressed. My final point is about resources, which have been mentioned by others. We can pass as much legislation as we like, but whether it is the dispersal provision in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill or the proposed legislation to protect emergency workers, it will not be implementable if it is not backed by the necessary resources, properly deployed, in the police service, social work services and other support services.
The proposed legislation is part of the jigsaw, but it is not the total answer. A realistic and ambitious package is required to deal with a severe problem in almost every part of Scotland, whether it is rural or urban or is in the north, the south or anywhere else.
In August last year, I found myself in Helensburgh court because I had been deemed to be part of a crowd that was acting inappropriately outside the gates of Faslane nuclear submarine base and I had been arrested and charged with breach of the peace. That makes it clear to me that anyone, in any part of Scotland, who is part of a large crowd that is acting inappropriately can already be charged and arrested for their behaviour.
In the court, I had to wait for two cases to be dealt with before mine. One chap was charged with possession of what was described as enough cannabis for personal use. Another chap was charged with assaulting a female ticket collector on the Glasgow to Dumbarton train; the assault constituted verbal abuse and spitting on the female ticket collector. Both the young men pleaded guilty to their respective charges and both were fined £50.
That example illustrates why we need to reinforce the promise that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service made more than a year ago, when it said that it would emphasise the need to deal much more stringently with attacks on public service workers. In Helensburgh that day, it was obvious that the message from the Lord Advocate had not got through. When a young man is fined £50 for possession of cannabis for personal use and someone who has assaulted a young female ticket collector is given the same fine, it is obvious that the message is not getting through. We must address the fact that far too many public service and emergency service workers in Scotland are vulnerable and need extra protection.
I am sure that other members, like me, have a sense of déjà vu. We should not be discussing the introduction of a specific offence against emergency service workers—we should be discussing whether we need to extend legislation to cover other workers. In February 2003, the Parliament should have agreed to amendment 75 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, in the name of Paul Martin, which wanted to make attacking emergency service workers a specific new offence. The same arguments that were deployed against that amendment are being deployed today—that is where my sense of déjà vu comes from. Some members are asking, rightly, how far the argument goes, who is in the public service and who is an emergency service worker. Such arguments are legitimate and we should not undermine them, but we should have made a start a year ago by introducing the provisions that were discussed at stage 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which received cross-party support. The provisions were also discussed at stage 3 in February 2003 and secured cross-party support. Unfortunately, Liberal and Labour members voted against the provisions. It would be worth while for Labour members to bear it in mind that when some members called for the introduction of extra laws, Labour members voted them down and voted against extra support for emergency workers in the front line.
We must all welcome the fact that we have eventually reached this stage and that there will eventually be legislation, but it would have been much better if legislation had been in force for the past 12 months. We could have reflected on how things had worked and on how wide we would have to cast the net in relation to extension. We must certainly ensure that ambulance crews are included in any definition of emergency workers and that the front-line staff whom members have mentioned—particularly nurses and other health workers on duty in accident and emergency wards throughout Scotland—are considered to work in emergency situations. However, it would have been better for all those emergency service workers if the Parliament had taken the bold step of introducing the provisions back in February last year. We would then have been able to monitor things and to add any extra coverage that was now required.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will admit that he was wrong when he said:
"I do not believe that there is a proven need for legislation at this stage."—[Official Report, 20 February 2003; c 18516.]
I am afraid that, almost 12 months later, there is a need for legislation. Legislation was needed then—most of the examples that were given by Paul Martin and other members involved attacks on emergency service workers that had happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Sadly, such attacks are still taking place.
We should welcome the fact that there will be legislation, but we should recognise that the legislation is a year late. The Executive must learn to listen more to its own back benchers as well as to Opposition members.
I was not a member of the Parliament last February, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue today. I am glad to see that at least one member of Tommy Sheridan's group—himself—has an interest in the matter; I regret that there are not more Scottish Socialist Party members in attendance.
Yesterday, I went to see the new Parliament building for the first time. I was struck by the attention that was given on the site to the safety of all—workers and visitors. Notices advised everyone to report any dangerous situation immediately, not to carry out any task that might result in accident or injury and to prevent others from doing so. I am sure that, like me, other members welcome such regard for safety being shown by the employer on behalf of its workers.
Last Monday night, I met red watch at Glenrothes fire station in my constituency. Their employers take equal care for their health and safety while they are on fire brigade premises. However, unlike the folk at the Holyrood site, when red watch go out to help to save lives their safety can be threatened in many ways. They have little protection against the violence, threats and intimidation that they can face, even while they tackle a dangerous situation, often in the interests of the very individuals—as other members have said—who are attacking them. I was staggered to learn that there are those who throw aerosol cans or cylinders into fires as the crew approaches so that they can have the pleasure of seeing any resulting explosion; who refuse to allow fire crews in to put out a fire; who attack the crew to prevent them from getting into the house to put out the fire; and who refuse to leave premises where a fire is raging and react violently when the crew try to persuade them to leave. Frequently, greater damage is done and greater danger to life ensues because the crew has to wait for police back-up.
I am sure that, like me, members can all imagine what might be inside those premises that the owners might not wish the police or the fire crews to see, but it is remarkable that they take that to the extent of wishing to burn to death while preventing that from happening or, worse, to threaten the life of the person who has turned up to help.
I heard about the success of the Glenrothes initiative to reduce the risk of violence and fires in South Parks and Macedonia by working with council staff, police and the community to prevent illegal fire-raising—otherwise known as bonfires—in the weeks up to 5 November. As it was reported to me, a local education process had achieved some results in identifying the perpetrators of such acts, who were subject to persuasion. However, fires were still being lit so the police went in gang-handed one night and lifted the lot of them, took them down to the station and held them there until their parents could come and get them. That worked. The incidence of illegal fire-raising through bonfires reduced considerably.
That proved to me, and to others, that the Executive is right to take a broad-based approach to the issue. Some people will be susceptible to persuasion and to being educated and will no longer engage in behaviour that might be dangerous. However, what do we do about the nutters and the bampots who are not susceptible to any degree of persuasion—the hard core who are not interested and who carry on regardless? Our emergency workers—whatever profession they are in—have the right to know that the Executive is prepared to take whatever measures it is able to take legally and to put those measures in place to give them the support that they need.
Since the consultation commenced, I have heard about verbal abuse, spitting and missiles being thrown at crews, vehicles and premises—sometimes by kids as young as four. What really upset me last Monday night was hearing of the many occasions on which the fire crews had watched the parents of the young people who were carrying out the behaviour actively encourage them. Those are the types of offensive behaviour of which I urge the Executive to take particular account. The Executive is right to act, not only for the crew of red watch in Glenrothes but for all the other watches in Glenrothes, Levenmouth and everywhere else in Scotland.
During the recent fire dispute, the Executive took a very hard line on hoax calls. That approach was well publicised, so perpetrators knew that they would be sought out, caught and dealt with quickly and that a custodial sentence would result. It worked: the number of hoax calls was reduced considerably.
Even though it might sound like I am a right-wing reactionary, in the cases in which persuasion and education will not work, I urge the Executive to deal strongly with those who continue to perpetrate violence on emergency workers.
Many interesting and thoughtful speeches have been made, which build usefully on the work that Paul Martin did during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. If I remember correctly, Karen Gillon secured a members' business debate on the subject, although I am prepared to be corrected on that if I have got the wrong member.
I turn to David Davidson's speech. It is welcome that the Tories have got out the piggy-bank and found enough money to increase the number of people who would staff the accident and emergency departments across Scotland. That was an unexpected bonus from the Tories.
Johann Lamont and I sit together on her committee—the Communities Committee—where we are presently considering antisocial behaviour. We will continue to debate whether the dispersal powers will solve the problem. One of the difficulties that Johann Lamont and others face lies in deciding how to deal with situations such as Christine May's useful red watch example. Such examples show that existing powers and resources can be used to solve the problem in many of the circumstances that we are discussing. Indeed, our committee heard evidence from a Labour councillor in Edinburgh who described how she co-ordinated resources and agencies in her ward to tackle severe problems. I apologise to the councillor concerned; I cannot recall her name.
I will address directly the topic that is in front of us. Unison Scotland says that it believes that
"attacks on any staff delivering public services should be treated under the law as serious assaults, not just attacks on emergency workers".
I find it easy to agree with that. On 2 June last year, Malcolm Chisholm launched a zero-tolerance campaign in the health service. I agree absolutely that zero tolerance is the right way forward.
I want to introduce a slightly different angle in order to illuminate the debate. I hope that court sentences will reflect the risks that are taken by all who meet the public as part of their normal jobs. The consultation document gives a number of useful examples of good practice in the courts. I hope that the Executive will provide further statistical information that will show the extent to which the courts are responding to the guidance that they have been given.
Will the member clarify whether, in his sympathy towards public sector workers, he believes that they should have specific statutory protection?
I will develop that point later. If I do not, I invite Brian Monteith to stand up again.
Police drivers are trained in defensive driving. By the same token, all of us have to take some level of personal responsibility for safety, identify the risks in our lives and manage them. One example of that is that we cannot step in front of a speeding bus and blame the driver for the consequences. An important point to recognise, however, is that, once we are employed or we have committed ourselves as volunteers to assisting others in peril—I am thinking of lifeboat people and mountain rescue and search-dog teams—we surrender some of our ability to manage personally the peril into which we are put by the irrational behaviour of others. Indeed, when I was a psychiatric nurse 40 years ago, I was subject to attack by my patients on two occasions. I understand the issues very clearly.
Those who provide public services in shops, restaurants and employment offices, for example, and especially those who staff accident and emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights, are at very real risk, not all of which they as individuals can manage themselves. If those workers are trained to act defensively, like police drivers, it can help them. However, the unmanaged element remains significant and the consequences of such risks running out of control can be severe, even to the point of death.
I want the courts to deal with assaults, including verbal, written and electronic assaults, with due regard to the surrender of control that is implicit in the situations in which people provide a public service. I also want the courts to punish in a way that genuinely reflects the alarm and distress of the victim.
Of course, sentencing takes place after the event, but we should judge the Executive on whether workers are adequately protected when they are exposed to risk. We know that fire service personnel are likely to be at serious risk—Christine May talked about the experiences of red watch in Glenrothes, which are repeated throughout Scotland. Are police resources on hand and co-ordinated with the fire services to protect fire service workers before attacks happen or other problems arise? Are accident and emergency departments in Scotland equipped not merely to respond post hoc, but to prevent harm from coming to their staff from the people whom they seek to serve? David Davidson raised that issue, but I formulate the question slightly differently.
If the consultation shows that legislation is required, by all means let us have that legislation. We will support it. However, let it apply to everyone who is at risk and let us not get into a position in which the legislation is a cover for the failure to leverage resources into areas in which the need is greatest. A failure to protect those who provide emergency services increases the risk and damages the quality of life for everyone in our communities. A failure to support those in the broader community who provide a service directly to the public, such as shop workers, inevitably leads to poorer services and poorer communities. I include in that category of workers the overworked and under-rewarded staff who work in our constituency offices—there have been tragic consequences of the failure to support such people.
The matter is close to home for all members and for people throughout Scotland. Let us hope that there continues to be a degree of consensus in the debate, as it is important.
I declare an interest, as I am a member of Unison.
I believe, as do many public sector workers, that the Scottish Executive's proposal is too restrictive in scope, but I welcome the opportunity to debate the matter.
Public sector workers have faced harassment through abuse and threats—verbally and, most recently, by e-mail—as well as violence, while carrying out their daily duties. The cost to the public purse each year is significant and untold damage is done to the victims. Local government workers, national health service workers, firefighters and utility workers are at the front end of service delivery and are regarded by some members of the public as an easy target. It is unacceptable that such workers' safety should be compromised and somehow regarded as unimportant, as a result of their exclusion from the protection afforded by the proposed legislation. We do not have two tiers of public sector workers and it would be regarded as a failure if we did not demonstrate that we value those workers.
I give some examples of recent incidents in the East Ayrshire Council area. A gritter lorry was recently attacked by a group of youths. The vehicle was badly damaged and had to be removed from service and the driver had to take time off sick as a result of the shock. Fortunately, no members of the public were injured, but the community in my constituency was left with untreated roads because of that mindless act.
East Ayrshire Council has also had to secure interim interdicts to protect its work force. On one occasion it did so to protect a housing officer, a housing inspector and direct works staff, who had been threatened with a hammer by a member of the public while they were attempting to carry out their public duties.
Staff in the health service are at risk wherever they conduct their duties. Accident and emergency is not the only area in which staff are at risk—even maternity wards are not exempt. We have many national health service staff who work in the community and they often work alone. Although risk assessment is undertaken, it does not always take account of staff who visit patients. For visiting general practitioners, health visitors and district nurses, the risk is even greater because they are sometimes visiting the patient for the first time and the risks are unknown. That also applies to social work staff. Out-of-hours staff can be at greater risk because they sometimes work in unfamiliar areas with unfamiliar patients or clients. Protecting workers is an issue for employers and the public sector is no exception, although the cost can be significant.
If legislation can be a deterrent to harassment and violence, we should put it in place. The measures that were introduced by the Lord Advocate are a step, but not enough of a deterrent to those who abuse public service employees. I have no problem with the measures introduced by the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 because police officers should be protected. However, all public sector workers are in need of protection and we would be doing them a disservice if we excluded any of them from the protection that is afforded to police officers.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just finishing. I ask the minister to take account of my concerns in his consultation.
We move to closing speeches. We are about five minutes ahead of the clock so I will allow a slight increase in time for the closing speeches.
I welcome the chance to debate again this important issue. Public service workers work on behalf of us all and they deserve our support and respect. We are rightly disgusted when we hear stories about attacks on those workers, such as those we have heard today and that we read in the media.
I have been a consistent advocate of supporting and protecting public service workers through extra legislation. However, I take on board the comments made by my colleague Robert Brown, who said that changing the law is only part of what we can do. I suggest that we can do much more in the way of extra resources. If a worker in the health service is assaulted, we can do more to support them than has been the case so far with regard to counselling, pressing charges and so on. They can also be better protected through the use of closed circuit television and security personnel.
Two members' business debates have already touched on the issue of violence against public sector workers. The first was about violence against social workers—I think that Margaret Jamieson touched on that issue—who are at great risk of being assaulted. I will return to that in a moment. The second debate was on the question of valuing nurses. One of the issues in that debate concerned protection against assault and threatening behaviour. We heard a series of different figures of the number of nurses who have been assaulted. Nurses are at the top of the league table when it comes to assaults, violence and threats made against them.
I visited the sick kids hospital in Glasgow on one occasion. Given the work that those people do—saving children's lives and working with families—it is absolutely unacceptable that they are still being threatened with violence by people waiting for them in the car park. We should do everything that we can to stamp that out.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to legislation, but its proposal is too restrictive. I have called on the Executive to act on this matter in the past and colleagues in the chamber did the same when Karen Gillon secured a members' business debate on the subject.
I welcome the extra guidance that the Lord Advocate has given to procurators fiscal in the past year that sheriffs should treat attacks on public service workers as serious offences. That a victim is a public service worker should be taken into account as an aggravating factor. However, we have heard today from Tommy Sheridan—and we know from experience—that that does not always happen; such guidance to sheriffs is not enough.
Does the member agree that it seems illogical and unreasonable that, when a non-uniformed support staff member works in a fire or police station alongside uniformed staff, they could end up with less protection than a uniformed member of staff would receive if somebody were to come into that station and attack them?
Yes. I will go on to address the issues that make the proposal far too restrictive. I do not think that anybody here disagrees with the recommendation in the proposal that protection for any group of workers should be brought into line with the protection that is already in place for the police, or that protection for the fire brigade should be upgraded.
I appreciate that the Executive is considering carefully the extension of the measure. We have heard a series of examples of other workers who need protection. Stewart Maxwell has just given us one; Fergus Ewing and others talked about psychiatric nurses; and I feel strongly about NHS and council staff. Such workers go unprotected into people's homes, often as a first contact, which means that they cannot assess the risk in advance of the visit. We do not do enough to protect such staff, for example by giving them mobile phones. Margaret Mitchell made a good point about making progress with the use of new technology. People who are out there on their own without CCTV or security personnel around them need extra protection. I bring those groups to the minister's attention.
NHS staff should be given legislative protection, wherever they are. It is spurious to argue that accident and emergency departments are the only place where emergency and life-threatening situations arise in the health service. Such situations arise throughout the health service, for example, when a community nurse visits somebody in their home, or in cardiac departments, or baby units. The proposals will work only if we open them up to cover a much wider group of people. We are told that 40 per cent of NHS staff have been assaulted or threatened, but those are only the ones who report incidents. Too often, public sector staff, particularly those in the NHS or in front-line council services such as social work, accept verbal abuse or threats as part of their job. We should not accept that. As a member whose constituency office was the subject of an air rifle attack—I hope not for anything I have said in the chamber—I take on board the point that our constituency staff are also at risk.
I ask the Executive to reconsider the issue, to take on board many of the comments that colleagues have made and to take the proposal further. The Executive should take on board the comments of Unison, which says that the measure should be extended to all staff who deliver public services; or those of ASLEF, which argues that all public service workers in an emergency situation should be covered; or those of the RCN, that all nurses in any place should be covered.
I ask the Executive to make progress on the initiatives that the minister mentioned that aim to tackle the problem of hoax calls, which I have talked about before and which are a major drain on resources. We should also work on education initiatives. What kind of mentality does somebody have to attack a paramedic while they are trying to save somebody's life? The Executive should consider all those issues and take on board comments such as Alex Neil's interesting suggestion that we should limit the number of people who can accompany patients to accident and emergency units on Friday and Saturday nights.
I welcome the Executive's recent £370,000 investment in practical projects that try to address some of the issues. I also welcome the commitment to zero tolerance of such abuse in the NHS. However, we will achieve zero tolerance only if all NHS workers are protected by legislation and by every effort that the Executive and the Parliament can make. I ask the Executive to consider the proposed legislation again and to open it up to cover public sector workers more widely.
I welcome the opportunity to close for the Conservatives in this open debate on the protection of emergency workers.
Robert Brown's attempt to define the difference between an act of violence against an emergency worker and such an act against somebody working in the public service had resonance for me. However, I thought that the example of somebody throwing stones at a train needed rather more development. I noticed Robert Brown's caveat that he was not reducing the importance of such a crime, but it would have been helpful to elevate the example. What if, having caused an accident by stoning a train, the perpetrator of such a crime stayed behind and stoned the emergency workers who came to help?
Members and the public generally just cannot understand why people would behave in such a manner. Nobody can understand why anybody would throw stones at a train, but for someone to take further action and hinder people who are trying to help others to bring relief is beyond the bounds of our common comprehension.
The Minister for Finance and Public Services opened the debate with a very measured and precise speech. I welcome the fact that he wants to hear views about who constitutes emergency workers. It was right that, in his measured speech, he spent some time explaining the scope of what he felt that the Executive's interventions could bring and what public service is. Indeed, much of the following debate concentrated on trying to tease out what those definitions are and what members felt that the legislation might cover.
So, what has come out of the debate? It has been useful—at least, at this initial stage—in identifying some areas of consensus. That is possibly because there was no motion to amend or debate; this may be a useful way of working at such a stage, before legislation. However, we can take it as read that emergency workers should be protected—there is no dissent from that position. I draw members' attention to a small, but no less important, point. ASLEF has said that, rather than talk of the protection of emergency service workers, we should talk of public service workers in emergency situations. That is an effort to define more closely what we are seeking to address and is an important point that bears serious consideration.
Another area of consensus was the general feeling among members that laws are not enough. Members of all parties have recognised that there are a variety of measures at our disposal, which, together with the legislation that might come from the Executive, can begin to tackle this serious issue. Those include additional resources, other corresponding legislation that might have an effect on the crime and—as Margaret Mitchell suggested—a strengthening of the rights of teachers and the use of ideas that come from organisations such as Unison, such as the red and yellow cards.
Some issues remain to be resolved, and I hope that the consultation process and the debate that we will have will begin to fine tune them. Today has been a start. It was interesting to hear Johann Lamont mention the private sector. There is an important issue in the fact that the public services are not just the public sector. Whether they are working in emergency situations or—if we accept the definition—in the wider public service, people from all walks of life and in all employment situations are involved in public service. We have voluntary groups—which Stewart Stevenson mentioned—such as lifeboat crews. The other evening, I met some people from Transco who told me that some of their staff who go out to deal with gas leaks are attacked. Transco is a private sector company. David Davidson—who has had to leave the chamber—talked about the problems that he experienced in community pharmacies. Various types of workers are under threat from this despicable behaviour, which needs to be dealt with.
As well as consensus, and areas that need resolution, there is disagreement. Members' deliberations have been fairly calm at this stage, but it is clear that the big question is whether we should extend the provisions for public service workers in emergency situations to cover all public service workers and—to extend them a bit further—to people working in the public service.
While I have absolutely no reason to question the motives of any who expressed their views today—I think that everyone was sincere about trying to obtain protection for workers and ensure that due weight is given to that protection—the telling point for me is the minister's argument that the use of the common law might be a superior solution to bringing in new laws. I am no judicial expert so I will defer to people who know more about these matters, but if bringing in a new law means that we will find it harder to prosecute and secure sentences, we should stick with the common law. That is the big issue that we need to get our teeth into, as only once we have resolved it can we look public service workers in the face and tell them that we are putting their interests first.
Opening the debate, the minister ably outlined the reasons why we need to take action to protect emergency workers, those who assist them and other workers who deal with emergency situations. There will be no argument about that in the chamber, as we have debated the matter twice before: once when Paul Martin lodged his amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill just under a year ago and again in a members' business debate. However, today's debate has shown that, although there is consensus on the need for legislation, it will be extremely difficult to produce that legislation. On the face of it, the task seems simple because what is required is obvious. However, the issue becomes more complex the more it is considered.
During the debate, I have been keeping a list of the various kinds of workers whom members have mentioned. There are myriad jobs. There are the workers who are easy to think of, such as firefighters, police and ambulance staff. Beyond them, there are workers in the NHS—of course, it is perfectly valid that doctors and nurses, even those who are not in the accident and emergency departments, should be protected. Beyond them are public sector workers in general: social workers and ticket collectors on trains have been mentioned; Margaret Jamieson mentioned an attack on a gritting lorry; and Johann Lamont mentioned private sector workers who deliver a public service.
I do not want to contradict the member's point that the issue is complex, but does she accept that a firefighter or an ambulance worker deserves just as much, if not more, protection under the law as a sheriff officer does?
Anybody who is going about their work lawfully deserves protection, whatever form that protection might take. There is a clear case for certain defined workers, such as firefighters and ambulance workers, to be included in the provisions that we are discussing. There is nothing more abhorrent than a situation in which people who are going out to save lives find that their lives are being threatened. However, the matter becomes more complicated when we try to include everyone who provides a public service.
I note what the minister said about trying to introduce a specific offence of statutory aggravation and the difficulties that are encountered when an attempt is made to extend the legislation to include people beyond clearly defined emergency workers. I know that the matter will be more fully explored when any legislation goes through the committee stage. It is right that that should happen, as there are many views on the matter—we have all received lobbying papers from various trade unions, the British Medical Association and so on.
One issue that was raised made me think back to when I worked in housing some years ago. Sometimes, members of staff and I were threatened—quite severely on one occasion—by people who came into the office. We were not emergency workers, but we were providing a public service. What struck me today was that, once we had dealt with the situations, we did not report them to the police but simply talked about them with other people who worked in the same area. That happens a lot.
Stewart Stevenson asked what training people who have to deal with the public should undergo for dealing with such situations. The minister and, I think, Christine May mentioned public awareness. It needs to be made plain to the public that everyone has the right to go about their work in safety and that any kind of action against their safety will be severely dealt with.
Fergus Ewing, in his usual conciliatory way, welcomed the guidance that the Lord Advocate has issued to procurators fiscal on dealing with and sentencing people who attack emergency workers. Stewart Stevenson asked whether the results arising from that would be monitored. I ask that we be given at least a view today on how things are proceeding in that regard and on whether the guidance is making a difference to sentencing.
Fergus Ewing also mentioned a report in the newspapers about the First Minister. That was a valid contribution. If the First Minister wishes to say that those reports are wrong, he should do as Fergus Ewing asks and publish the letter concerned, so that we can see it. Let us see that his letter did not say that the incident that Fergus Ewing described was a "minor matter", particularly given that the nurse in question was terrified and that the police time that was spent might have been better spent in other ways. If the First Minister implied that the incident was only a minor matter, let him at least apologise and admit that he got things wrong.
David Davidson made an excellent contribution about pharmacists. At a meeting with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain that I attended recently, the question of the safety of pharmacists came up. Obviously, pharmacists deal with members of the public all the time and the concern was expressed that, given the quite proper emphasis on community pharmacists and on the other services that are being offered, some staff in chemists' shops are being put at even greater risk. Everyone has been saying that there is much more to the issue than we might have thought when we started out with good intentions.
David Davidson asked whether there should be security staff—I think that he said on 24-hour cover—at accident and emergency departments in every hospital. That is worth considering, as is Alex Neil's suggestion that there should be enforceable rules about who is allowed to attend when somebody goes into casualty. I have not often been to casualty departments, but I remember once being in casualty in the early hours of the morning. The people who were sitting waiting for treatment, for their child to be seen or for their mother to come out were being intimidated by some of the characters who were coming in to wait for their pals. Margaret Jamieson was right when she told us that some people treat the occasion almost as an extension of their evening out and as a normal part of their social life.
I think that it was Margaret Smith who raised the important question of what happens after emergency workers or other public service workers are attacked and whether proper guidelines are in place on the need for counselling and aftercare. That is another element showing how the issue is much bigger than it first looked when everyone started out down the line of creating legislation to deal with it. A lot of issues have come out this afternoon and I look forward to hearing the Lord Advocate's response.
I may have missed this, but I have not seen the timetabling for the proposed bill. I know that the consultation finishes at the beginning of February, but I am not sure when the Executive intends to come back to the chamber or when the bill will be considered in committee. A steer on that would be useful for us all.
The Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd):
The debate has been interesting, constructive and useful. The problem of attacks on emergency workers and other public sector employees is obviously of serious concern to all members. We will consider carefully the points that have been raised, together with the responses to the consultation paper, when the bill is being finalised for introduction.
I echo Brian Monteith's point that there is consensus in the chamber on much that is being proposed. In a constructive and useful summing-up for the Conservatives, he emphasised that the common law has a degree of flexibility that is of prime concern to all members. Margaret Mitchell, Robert Brown and many other members also stressed the flexibility of the common law. I share Andy Kerr's belief that the law as it stands offers the most effective protection for most public service workers. The great advantage of the present law is the flexibility at its core and its ability to evolve.
In the 19th century, an authoritative Scots lawyer recognised that
"assault may be aggravated by its being committed on an official performing a public duty".
In the 21st century, that principle has developed to recognise the special position of all workers who provide a public service, embracing the vast variety of services on which we as a society now rely. The flexibility to which I have referred has allowed our criminal justice system to keep pace with the times, offering effective means of dealing with new or emerging blights on society. Our courts have been able to get on with the business of bringing to justice those who fail to respect the people who deliver valuable services to society without getting caught up in the technical arguments about who does or does not fall to be protected in such a way. I suggest that that would inevitably be the result of prescribing in statute the particular category of workers who are entitled to special protection.
Some people argue that there should be a statutory aggravation to protect public sector workers. I believe that that would simply create another problem. The additional burden of proof that it would place on the Crown could cause problems in prosecutions and might make it more difficult to prove the aggravation and secure a conviction.
In my speech, I spoke about emergency service workers, to whom Paul Martin's proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill last year also referred. Does the Lord Advocate agree that, in the case of attacks on emergency service workers in which such workers are clearly identified by their uniforms and the accident and emergency situation with which they are dealing, it should not be too hard to prove aggravation?
That misses the point. We are suggesting not an aggravation but a specific offence. Paul Martin's amendment would have created a specific offence. I endorse what Johann Lamont said about Paul Martin's campaigning on the issue, which has stimulated debate. However, what we are proposing goes beyond the amendment that Paul Martin lodged last year. Had we accepted that amendment, we would not have had the very full consultation that has been carried out and we would not be having this debate, which is teasing out many of the difficult issues, as Linda Fabiani rightly recognised.
Another problem with aggravation is that it places one set of victims above the others. I reiterate to Johann Lamont, who raised the issue of aggravation, that that is not our intention. Let me offer members an example. A bus driver stops a bus at a bus stop and a youth gets on. There is an altercation and a dispute about the youth paying. As a result, the youth is asked to leave the bus. Before he does so, he spits at the bus driver—a nasty, disgusting offence that deserves to be punished. As the youth gets off the bus, an old lady in the queue remonstrates with him about what he has done. He spits at her and then leaves. Those who argue for a statutory aggravation in those circumstances would have the court impose a greater sentence for the spitting at the bus driver than for the spitting at the old lady in the queue. To some people, that might be appropriate, because the first victim was a bus driver. However, I think that most people would suggest that the punishment in both cases should be equivalent. That is the problem of having an aggravation.
The minister mentioned my guidance to procurators fiscal, which highlights the aggravated and serious nature of attacks on workers providing a public service. Across the country, there are recent examples of the guidance having real impact in practice. The result has been successful prosecutions, of which I will give members three recent examples. An Edinburgh accused was prosecuted on indictment for assaulting a bus driver by hitting him on the head with a rock. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. In Glasgow, two accused assaulted a train driver and another person who had intervened to stop a disturbance on a train. Both accused were sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Last month in West Lothian, a man was convicted of assaulting a bus driver by spitting at him. In sentencing the accused to a period of detention, the sheriff made it clear that that sort of behaviour was unacceptable.
Of course, it is completely unacceptable that anyone should be the subject of assault or abuse at work. We want to ensure that the law is an effective tool in ensuring the safety and welfare of emergency workers and all public service workers. We are right to recognise that legislation is not the answer in every case. Many members—including Robert Brown, Alex Neil, Margaret Smith and Christine May—pointed out that legislation should be part of a package of measures designed to protect people in public service work. David Davidson raised the specific issue of health service workers and his point was echoed by Margaret Smith. We will consider carefully the points that have been raised in relation to health service workers. Johann Lamont linked the issues that we have been discussing to those relating to antisocial behaviour. I believe that all measures will be part and parcel of how we protect our communities and show respect to the people who provide us with a service.
The situation for emergency personnel is, I believe, unique. The nature of their work renders them, and those who assist them, particularly vulnerable to attack. When emergency workers are assaulted, obstructed or hindered in the course of dealing with an emergency, it is not only their safety and lives that are put at risk, but the safety and lives of those whom they are working to protect.
The police have, since the 1960s, been afforded a special level of protection by the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, in recognition of the very serious consequences of interference in the exercise of police duties. It should be noted that assaulting, obstructing or hindering emergency personnel who are engaged in emergency duties will bring precisely the same grave potential consequences as apply with the police. It is logical to acknowledge that in statute. Those who disregard such a strong message from the chamber can be in no doubt that their behaviour will not be tolerated and that our system of justice will regard their behaviour as serious indeed.
Just before I close, I should deal with the point that Fergus Ewing raised in relation to a particular case. I do not intend to debate with him the merits of any particular case, save to say that, if there is any suggestion, in what he said, that the First Minister was instrumental in having charges against any individuals dropped, that suggestion is completely untrue and unfounded.
I hope that I have set out the reasons why the Executive is proposing specific legislation to protect emergency service workers working in emergency situations. Today's debate, and the wider consultation, will no doubt be of great value in helping to develop those proposals.