Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7592, in the name of Hugh Henry, on the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill.
15:40
I want to thank a number of people and organisations who helped me to bring the bill to the Scottish Parliament. I thank the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which helped to co-ordinate efforts, and those individual trade unions that lobbied and worked hard to make the bill a possibility. It was their determination to do the right thing by their members that led to the bill being introduced.
I am grateful for the work that was done by Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre on drafting what was previously a general set of ideas, and I am especially grateful to Frances Bell and Tracey White of the legislation unit who helped to put the final touches to the bill and make it fit for purpose.
The bill is based on the simple notion that anyone who attacks a worker who is serving the public should be charged with a specific offence and punished accordingly. The Parliament accepted the principle of such an approach when it passed the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005. The bill seeks to adopt similar measures and provide them for workers other than police officers, fire officers and health service staff.
Is there a problem that needs to be addressed? Even those who do not support the bill recognise that there is a problem. I accept that there are difficulties in the way in which statistics are gathered; we heard about that during committee evidence sessions. I hope that the minister will address that point.
It has been argued that, in 2007-08, the total number of physical assaults against public sector workers in Scotland was 32,263. According to Unison, that figure included 9,121 assaults on local government workers and represented an increase of 3,000 on the previous year’s figures. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers reported that in this year’s freedom from fear survey, 11.3 per cent of Scottish shop workers had been assaulted and 40 per cent had been threatened.
The Scottish crime and justice survey found that, in 2008-09, 7 per cent of public-facing workers had experienced physical abuse during the previous 12 months. A 2010 survey by Queen Margaret University found that 8 per cent of young workers had been physically assaulted during the previous 12 months.
We should remember that it is not just the individual who suffers as a result of an assault. The family suffers, as do the wider public when a bus or train service is withdrawn following an assault. The whole community suffers, particularly the poor and disadvantaged who have to rely on public transport. When a local shop is closed following violence, the community feels the loss. When postal services are disrupted following an assault, individuals, businesses and many others can be affected. If vital care services are withdrawn, the disabled, sick and elderly lose out.
I could spend the next hour telling stories reported by Unite, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the Communication Workers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, Unison and others. There is clearly a problem. Voluntary sector workers, teachers and shopkeepers are all saying that action needs to be taken. Large responsible employers are also lining up to back the bill. I thank the Co-op, Morrisons and Asda for their support and for calling on the Parliament to take action. Transport operators such as FirstGroup plc also support the bill.
All those people look to the success of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 to justify their view. The EWA has clearly found support. It can be said to act as a deterrent, but increasingly it is also being used, which is why more crimes are being recorded. Answers to parliamentary questions show that in 2006-07, 723 minor assaults were recorded; in 2007-08, 753 were recorded; and in 2008-09, that figure had risen to 1,150. The number of convictions from those charges is also rising.
I am told that there is no need for the legislation as penalties for assault have now caught up with what I propose. If that is the case, how can we justify the continuation of the EWA? The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said that my bill is not required and yet he defends the EWA. Disappointingly, the Scottish Police Federation says that there is no need for the bill and yet it defends the continued availability of the EWA for police officers, even though it acknowledges that similar penalties are available under the general law.
The fact is that the EWA is symbolically important. It sends out a clear message that the Parliament will not tolerate attacks on those who provide emergency services. Why, then, should we be silent about attacks on bus drivers, train drivers, postal workers, care workers, housing officers, shop workers, teachers, voluntary sector workers and others?
The Parliament wants action to tackle alcohol abuse, and we have said that shop workers should demand proof of age under the challenge 25 scheme. Shop workers who are faced with the current legislation already experience problems, and we will be exposing shop workers to more harassment, intimidation and abuse. We have asked shop workers to enforce our alcohol policy; surely the least that we can do is to offer those shop workers the added protection that I propose.
To those who say that the current law is strong enough, let me point out that this Parliament and its predecessors have already acknowledged that the current law is not good enough for a range of people in our society. In 1988 Westminster introduced additional penalties for crimes involving incitement to racial hatred; in 2003 this Parliament required that religious prejudice be considered as an aggravated offence; and in 2009 this Parliament provided statutory aggravations for crimes motivated by malice towards an individual based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.
Let us sum up. I am told that we do not need the bill. A police officer has added protection, but not a train driver. A fireman has added protection, but not a bus driver. A doctor has added protection, but not a care worker. There will be added penalties for a crime against someone based on their race but not against a shop worker. There will be added penalties for a crime against someone based on their sexual orientation but not against a postal worker. There will be added penalties for a crime against someone based on their disability but not against a voluntary sector worker who helps those people with a disability.
Frankly, it is a cop-out to suggest that the bill is superfluous—the Parliament has already created precedents. I appeal to members to allow the bill to proceed to stage 2. I urge them not to turn their backs on workers who provide a service to the public. I ask them to vote for the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill.
15:48
As deputy convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I am speaking on behalf of the committee because the convener, Iain Smith, cannot be here. We have recommended to the Parliament that it should not agree the general principles of the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill.
We acknowledge the work that Hugh Henry has done in introducing the bill and highlighting an important issue that has prompted much-needed debate. The committee is aware that this is an important issue for public-facing workers and that a solution is required.
Thanks, of course, are due to all those who provided us with oral evidence or submitted written evidence in aiding the committee’s consideration of the bill’s general principles. I pay particular thanks to Diane Barr for her help as the assistant clerk who drew together our report.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is not used to dealing with what is probably a justice issue; the subject was rather different for us, but it has been enlightening to hear about the issues that affect many workers in their daily duties.
One of the key arguments that is made in favour of the bill is that it would act as a deterrent and thereby reduce the number of attacks on workers who provide a service to the public and their equipment. The majority view of the committee was that the bill is not the most appropriate method of seeking to ensure the protection of public-facing workers, because it does not extend the protection that is currently available under the common law.
The committee was unable to access data on the effectiveness of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which was introduced to tackle offences of the assault, hindrance and obstruction of persons who provide emergency services; therefore, we could not determine whether the legislation had acted as a deterrent. We had to question the effectiveness of the existing legislation if there were still so many assaults on public-facing workers. If the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provided publicly the statistical data on the aggravating circumstances for common-law assault and breach of the peace prosecutions, it would be possible to draw meaningful conclusions on the effectiveness of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 by accessing data from both before and after its introduction.
The committee is of the firm view that action needs to be taken now to address this serious problem and that the promotion of a strong public policy message that assaults on public-facing workers will not be tolerated is an essential part of helping to bring about the required culture change in our country. In evidence, the committee heard that, although existing common law takes account of aggravating circumstances, there remains a perception among workers that assaults are not taken seriously by the Crown Office and that that perception contributes to the thousands of incidents that go unreported each year. Witnesses told the committee that one way of tackling that perception and bringing about the necessary culture change would be the introduction and application of prosecution and sentencing guidelines.
Similar guidelines have been introduced previously by the Lord Advocate to tackle knife crime, so that cases involving someone with a previous conviction for carrying a knife are prosecuted on indictment. That gives the court that deals with the matter a much stronger sentencing possibility.
Prosecution and sentencing guidelines should be introduced as soon as possible for assaults on public-facing workers, and their introduction should be accompanied by a high-profile publicity campaign. The committee’s view is that such action will send out a strong message that violent and aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated. It will also demonstrate that the courts are taking assaults on public-facing workers seriously and will, we hope, help to tackle the on-going issue of underreporting.
There are two other measures that I will talk about briefly. The Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation told the committee of the effectiveness of the preventive measures that they undertake, such as engaging with communities to target antisocial behaviour. Employers are taking relevant workplace measures such as introducing closed-circuit television and their own schemes to target unacceptable behaviour. They also have a greater awareness of the issues that staff face, encouraging them to report incidents and supporting them throughout the process.
The committee believes that the issues that the bill raises are significant and should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The measures that I have outlined will go a long way to providing protection for workers who provide a valuable service to the public.
15:53
I thank the committee and its clerking team for its stage 1 scrutiny of Hugh Henry’s bill. The bill raises a number of issues, which I will touch on during my short contribution to the debate.
No one disagrees that workers who serve the public deserve protection. What the stage 1 scrutiny has revealed, however, is that there is disagreement on how best that can be achieved. It is important to be clear about the effect that the bill would have if it were passed. It would take a bit of the existing common law of assault and replicate it as a new statutory offence. It would not extend the criminal law in any way and it would not, therefore, extend new protections at all.
We sympathise with Hugh Henry and the important issues that his bill casts light on, and we agree that raising awareness of the issues that workers face is critical. Parliamentary scrutiny helps in that regard. However, the issue cannot be addressed without tackling the underlying causes of the offences.
We have clearly said that only through rebalancing Scotland’s relationship with alcohol can we hope to achieve long-term success in reducing violence in our society, including alcohol-fuelled incidents against workers. The statistics are clear. According to a 2009 survey, 50 per cent of prisoners indicated that they were under the influence of alcohol at the time they committed their offences and 45 per cent indicated that they were under the influence of drugs.
We are concerned that the bill would apply to so many types of worker that it would, in effect, risk creating confusion in the law over those who would be covered and those who would not.
We note the comments that were made during stage 1 about the lack of data on offences on workers. However, we are not persuaded that spending money on collecting more data is preferable to spending money on putting 1,000 extra officers on the streets. We make no apologies for that—putting more police on the streets is where our priorities lie. That kind of visible police presence will reassure and protect public-facing workers and, where any such worker is assaulted, will detect and bring to punishment those who have perpetrated the offence.
Any decision on guidelines on the prosecution of assaults against public-facing workers is of course a matter for the Lord Advocate. However, I am clear that the Lord Advocate—and indeed the Solicitor General, whom I met yesterday to discuss the bill—the Crown and prosecutors at every level take very seriously cases in which a public-facing worker is the victim. Every member of the public and public-facing worker should be reassured in that regard. I also point out that such matters are quite correctly regarded as an aggravation that can be considered by sheriffs under the common law. Having practised in the criminal courts, I can say that sheriffs view assaults on the workers to whom Mr Henry referred as a considerable aggravation and a matter to be dealt with in the most serious way, and we should recognise and support the commonsense approach that those in the judiciary and the Crown take to such cases.
As with prosecutions under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, prosecutors will often seek to prosecute cases against public-facing workers in the sheriff summary courts rather than in the justice of the peace courts to ensure that a higher sentencing limit applies. As for sentencing guidelines, we agree that, when the sentencing council is established, it may well wish to examine whether guidelines in this area would assist the Crown and the judiciary.
This is a well-intentioned piece of legislation and we all support its intention of protecting people from individual actions. However, for the reasons that we have given—in particular, the need to tackle the root problem of alcohol abuse—we will not support it at decision time.
15:58
Day in, day out in our country, workers who deal with the public face assault and intimidation, and it is time for the Parliament to act. Hugh Henry is to be congratulated not only on raising this crucial issue in Parliament, but on how he has taken it forward and the way in which he has made a powerful case based on evidence.
In my view, rejecting this change in the law will fail the workers who have in such great numbers expressed to Parliament their concerns about the kinds of behaviour and offences that they all too often have to endure. Yes, there is scope to debate the definition of a worker and, yes, we could at later stages consider the inclusion in the bill of hindrance and obstruction of workers, but by rejecting the bill now, although we acted on the evidence of the problem that faced emergency workers, we will have decided not to respond to the others who have to face very similar—indeed, sometimes exactly the same—circumstances. The Parliament will not just have ignored what those workers told us about their experiences, or the arguments that have been set out by USDAW, Unite, Unison and the other union; it will have ignored the statistical evidence. The data exist. Indeed, research from Retailers Against Crime shows a 78 per cent increase in violence against and abuse of Scottish shop workers in just the past three years, and Hugh Henry himself referred to a wide range of supporting evidence.
We have just heard about the Scottish Government’s position from the cabinet secretary. That position is inconsistent. The Scottish Government not only supported the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, but it has extended its scope so that doctors, nurses and midwives are covered whenever they are on duty. It was right to do that. In presenting the case for that measure to the Justice Committee in 2008, the Minister for Public Health pointed to the success of the 2005 act, under which there has been a 75 per cent conviction rate. As Hugh Henry said, the act is being used increasingly, and it may be helping to address the issue of underreporting of such offences. It is not just about deterrence when we look at the statistics. There have also been big issues to do with underreporting.
In many ways, the Scottish Government has made the argument for the bill, but it will not support it. It is doing that at a time when we have placed additional burdens on staff in their dealings with the public. The cabinet secretary talked about the impact of alcohol on crime. This situation makes the case itself. Quite rightly, we have tougher licensing laws and challenge 25 schemes to prevent alcohol from being sold to people who are under age but, as Hugh Henry said, that is likely to result in more aggrieved customers and more intimidating situations for staff, who already have to deal with such situations. It is not enough to say that that can simply be dealt with by the common law. Dave Watson of Unison pointed out that there are areas in the bill, particularly regarding low-level offences, that are not well covered by the common law.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time. I have only 45 seconds left.
The committee report rightly highlights other work that employers and the Scottish Government should do to tackle the issue, but passing the bill is fundamental to the success of any wider strategy. On-going work on the protection of workers is being done. Rob Gibson referred to that work, and we welcome it, but it is self-evident that we are not making the progress that we want to see on the problem with the application of the current laws. If the previous Government had simply accepted the case that the existing law was adequate, we would not have passed the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005.
Let us ensure that we make the lives of workers better by passing the bill. The Government is wrong to accept the status quo. Many workers who serve the public live in fear of violence from a tiny minority who can create a lot of harm. I hope that the Government will see sense in the debate and will back Hugh Henry’s excellent bill so that those workers can finally be free from fear and be properly protected in their workplaces.
16:02
There are two fundamental questions about the bill that need to be asked and answered. First, has the exercise identified a serious issue that urgently needs to be dealt with? Secondly, will the bill solve the problem that has been identified? I answer the first question with a big yes, but answer the second in the negative.
It is clear that a serious issue has been identified. Every member who has spoken so far has referred to that. There are far too many incidents against public-facing workers. In October this year, Unison highlighted yet again that there are more than 30,000 such incidents a year. Those incidents involve only public sector workers, not private sector workers. Therefore, it is clear that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
There is enormous support across the chamber for the motivation behind the bill, but not for the bill itself. Action needs to be taken. I agree with Rob Gibson that we need far stronger prosecution guidelines. There is a perception that the justice system does not treat such incidents seriously enough. That was said in written and oral evidence to the committee. I heard what the cabinet secretary said about a recent meeting with the Solicitor General in which assurances were given, but I urge the Government again to give us a commitment—possibly even in closing the debate—that that matter can be taken further. It was evident to the committee that the prosecution guidelines need to be strengthened and toughened up so that such incidents are taken seriously.
The reasons that have been put forward for the bill were to do with deterrence, punishment and the public policy message. On punishment, the difficulty is that the bill would not extend the criminal law. The common law of assault would not be extended in any way and would simply be replicated under the bill. The terms available on someone being found guilty under the bill would be identical to those that are available under the common law.
What additional punishment is available under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 that is not available under the common law?
Mr Henry knows that, when the 2005 act was introduced, it extended the law by quite a degree. At the time, the maximum penalty had been three months’ imprisonment and the 2005 act introduced a maximum of nine months’ imprisonment, which was a big extension. That act also introduced the crime of obstruction and hindrance of workers, but that is not part of the bill, which refers only to the assault of public-facing workers. The bill would not extend the punishment in any way or create anything new. It would not extend any greater protection.
Further, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the bill would be a deterrent. We had evidence from the fire service that the number of attacks on fire workers has remained static since the introduction of the 2005 act, at approximately 300 a year. That is 300 a year too many, but the number has remained the same, despite the introduction of the 2005 act. It is worth mentioning in passing that the Scottish Police Federation, an organisation for those who have to uphold the law, is against the bill for several reasons, including the creation of a hierarchy of victims and the added bureaucracy that would be involved.
There is enormous support for the motivation behind the bill but, in practice, the bill would not make an enormous difference. However, an issue has been identified. I urge the cabinet secretary to give assurances in his closing speech that the prosecution guidelines will be strengthened.
16:07
Hugh Henry’s bill rightly raises the problem of the abuse and injury by members of the public that can be suffered by staff in shops, public services, receptions of all kinds, complaints departments and other public-facing jobs. This is the age of the complaint. Some people, for good reason or no reason, seem to think that they have the right to castigate, abuse or even assault staff who deal with the public. The message that goes out from the Scottish Parliament and from members across the chamber, whatever their views about the bill, is that there is no such right and that retail, commercial and public sector staff who deal with the public have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect and not to be abused or assaulted as they go about their jobs.
It is, however, a fairly significant leap of logic that is not justified by the facts to move from that proposition to one that says that new legislation, laws and crimes are required. If staff are physically assaulted or subjected to abuse, it is a matter for the criminal law. Whether someone suffers an assault, breach of the peace or some other crime, they are entitled to expect support from management, the police and other authorities in pursuing a criminal charge. As has been said, ample remedies are already in place—in substantive criminal law, sentencing powers and views about aggravated offences—to deal with such matters appropriately, although we might well need to firm up prosecution guidance or practice. It is noteworthy that Victim Support Scotland, among other organisations, accepted at the time of the passage of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill that emergency workers required enhanced protection but believed that extending those protections to all public service workers would be “unwieldy and unnecessary”.
Hugh Henry said that the bill is symbolic, but we legislate for substance and not for symbol. As the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee noted, there are considerable problems of definition. Which workers would be covered by the bill and which would not? As the Govan Law Centre asked, what about abusive calls to call centre workers? What exactly is a service that is face to face with the public? No doubt, those problems could be overcome if the case for legislation had been made more adequately but, to an extent, they go to the heart of the point about whether and to what extent there is a case for singling out certain workers and saying that it is particularly heinous to assault them. In my former legal office, a client once ran amok with a hypodermic syringe. It would be highly unsatisfactory if that person could have been charged under the bill for assaulting the receptionist but not for assaulting the post-room boy, the cash-room staff, the filing clerk or the typist. That illustrates some of the difficulties.
The bill also imposes tests that might, at least to a degree, make it a dead letter in practice. The assault has to be
“by reason of the worker’s employment”,
which is something else to prove beyond the normal mens rea—or guilty mind—of an assault charge. Indeed, section 1(2)(b) requires the Crown to prove in certain circumstances that the assault is motivated
“by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.”
As any lawyer knows, proving malice is extremely difficult, so that provision would ensure that no prosecutor would think of using that part of the bill when a common-law assault charge was available.
Many of these issues were looked at during the passage of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. It was argued then that the protections in the bill should be extended to other public service workers or workers who provide a service to the public. The then Scottish Executive, of which Hugh Henry was a prominent minister—he had recently been Deputy Minister for Justice—rejected that view. Cathy Jamieson, whom I see in the chamber, was the Minister for Justice at that time. One of the reasons why the Scottish Executive was right to reject that case was that it would water down the focus and emphasis rightly placed on emergency workers who were facing, and continued to face, a number of serious and well-publicised challenges.
No worker, and no member of the public, should face abuse or danger in going about their daily work and lives. However, the remedies are not necessarily by way of creating new legislation. The bill is not the way forward and Liberal Democrats agree with the committee that it should not be supported at stage 1 today.
16:11
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill and to put on record my thanks to Hugh Henry for his hard work in introducing the bill. I also thank everyone else who worked on it.
The previous speaker mentioned that I was the Minister for Justice in the previous Executive. Like Hugh Henry, I supported and welcomed the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. I also supported and welcomed the extensions to the 2005 act. I have come to the view that we need to look again specifically at workers who are dealing with the public but who are not covered by the 2005 act. That is why I support what Hugh Henry is trying to do.
Many people who deal with the public often face abuse and violence, as we have heard. I have heard from bus drivers who have been subjected to sustained attacks and who have suffered lasting physical and psychological trauma. I have heard from train crews who have been assaulted and verbally abused when dealing with passengers. I recently met shop workers from a Co-op store where there was an armed robbery.
Rightly, people will say that, in those circumstances, the employers ought to do something; they ought to ensure that there is as much security as possible and support for staff in the aftermath of incidents. Many of the workers to whom I have spoken have been satisfied with the level of support that they had. However, they feel strongly that they want the law to send a clearer message that people who are involved in violence against and abuse of public-facing workers will face tough penalties and that we should do everything that we can to deter people from such behaviour.
We have heard figures quoted by a number of speakers and I will not repeat them. However, each of those figures or statistics relates to an individual who has been a victim of a crime. We must do everything that we can to lessen the likelihood of people being in those circumstances.
One issue that has been raised in the chamber today, and which has been raised repeatedly by shop workers, is the challenge 25 requirement. Every shop worker to whom I spoke supports that initiative; they believe that it is right that proof of age is sought for alcohol purchases to prevent underage sales. However, as they pointed out, they are at the front line of enforcing that policy and expect us to give them the protection that they need if they are subjected to abuse or violence as a result.
As we have heard, it is not just the trade unions who support the bill. The retail sector, the Co-op, Scotmid, Morrisons, Asda, the Association of Convenience Stores and the Scottish Grocers Federation have all given their support to the bill. They all believe that passing the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill would show that MSPs support victims of violent crime in the workplace. They also believe that it would have a deterrent effect on potential offenders, who might well think twice before committing an assault.
As we know, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee reported on the bill last month. I was disappointed with its recommendations. I appreciate that it had some concerns about the bill, although it seemed to accept both from the written and the oral evidence that there was strong support for the basic principle that the rights of those who provide a service to the public should be respected. We have heard that in the chamber this afternoon. That is also borne out by my experience of the public’s response to a local petition by USDAW, which gathered hundreds of signatures in support of the bill in a couple of hours in East Ayrshire.
The committee’s report states:
“The Committee welcomes, and shares, the commitment of the member in charge of the Bill to promote the protection of, and respect for, public facing workers and recognises that there is a need for a culture change to tackle unacceptable behaviour towards those workers”,
with which I agree. I understand why the committee
“believes that the issues raised are significant and that if they are not dealt with by this Bill then Parliament should look at other ways of addressing them”,
but my view on that varies slightly. I have not so far today heard anything from committee members or Government ministers about how the issues will be addressed other than through more publicity and campaigning, which USDAW and the other trade unions have been doing over the past few years.
I ask members to think clearly about the message that the bill sends out. It is all very well to hear warm words in the chamber today, but those will quickly turn to freezing cold comfort if the bill is voted down.
16:16
I welcome the debate on the stage 1 report on Hugh Henry’s member’s bill. As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I pay tribute to Mr Henry for introducing the bill and raising the issue in Parliament. I thank the committee members for their scrutiny of the bill, I thank everyone who provided evidence and I thank the committee clerking team for their endeavours. I am confident that the committee gave the bill a fair and thorough hearing, and we came to our conclusions and recommendations accordingly.
Every member who participates in today’s debate will no doubt highlight their concerns about the protection of workers; we have heard some of those concerns already. Unquestionably, citizens in this country should be able to go about their daily lives and work in the knowledge that the law will protect them. The bill highlights the fact that existing legislation covers every citizen, but there is clearly an issue that affects public-facing workers.
We had to ask ourselves in the committee, first, whether the bill would provide further protection and effective action to reduce verbal and physical attacks on public-facing workers; and, secondly, who qualifies as a public-facing worker. On the first point, if the bill is enacted as drafted, nothing new will be introduced and no extra protection will be created. Part 2 of the bill, which deals with penalties, suggests imprisonment of up to 12 months, or a fine, or both. That currently exists in legislation. The penalty of a sentence of up to 12 months is exactly the same as in the 2005 act, as we have heard, and in the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. We therefore had to ask ourselves whether the bill would bring something new to the statute book.
On the second point, I was not convinced by some of the arguments that were made about who qualifies as a public-facing worker. It is clear that shop workers, bar and restaurant workers and many others, as highlighted by Hugh Henry in his speech earlier, would qualify. However, I had concerns that people who work in factories on the shop floor would not be covered, while the management would at times be covered if they were out representing the business. I found it difficult to understand how people who work in shipyards and call centres would not be covered, while the management would be covered when they were out representing those companies.
Paragraphs 65 to 71 of the report highlight the difficulty in defining who should be covered under the bill. The bill, like any other bill that comes before Parliament, would be subject to amendments, which was highlighted in the committee’s evidence taking. However, if the bill was greatly extended to cover the examples that I have highlighted and other categories of worker throughout the country, it would lose the focus on what it is attempting to do.
I whole-heartedly agree that more can always be done to protect all workers in Scotland. I do not think that the bill is the answer at this time, but I encourage the Scottish Government and the Parliament to work to address that important issue. Paragraph 64 and paragraphs 83 to 86 of the report contain important recommendations, and I look forward to hearing from the Government on its proposals to address the issues that are raised in the bill and the stage 1 report.
16:20
As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I, too, thank the clerking team and all those who gave evidence on the bill. Like three other committee members, I voted in support of the bill. I have heard concerns about the bill today and in evidence. Some of those concerns were mentioned by Stuart McMillan. Given that everyone seems to be in favour of the general principles of the bill, I would argue, as Hugh Henry did, that we should allow the bill to proceed to stage 2, which would allow us to explore the issues that have been raised. To vote against the bill at stage 1 sends out a message that will not be welcomed by those who hope that Parliament will protect them.
Violent incidents at work remain a major issue. Other members have already discussed the figures. Last year, more than 1 million shop workers were assaulted, threatened or abused in the workplace. Every incident is a traumatic event for the victim and often results in ill health. I am sure that I am not the only constituency member who has had many examples in their mailbag.
For some staff, the impact is so serious that they never work in their chosen profession again. I have had personal experience of that in a constituency case. That particularly applies to staff who perform a job in which violence is unexpected and is not a recognised risk. They are the very staff who are not adequately covered by existing criminal provisions. We have a duty to send out a message that that violent behaviour is unacceptable and that we believe in equality and parity for all workers who are public facing.
Statistics show that many violent incidents against shop workers are a result of staff asking for identification. The difficulties that shop workers face in policing age-related sales can leave them vulnerable and isolated when applying the no ID, no sale, and think 25 policies—Cathy Jamieson referred to that—to all customers, many of whom are frustrated when asked for ID. We must accept that those front-line staff are implementing the Parliament’s policy.
At a freedom from fear event at the Parliament last year, I met representatives from a major supermarket in my constituency who confirmed that the sale of age-restricted products, particularly alcohol, is a frequent cause of verbal abuse, threats and violence against shop workers. That is unacceptable. Parliament must take a stand for those employees and the 80 per cent of all Scottish workers who face the daily threat of violence by just doing their job.
The Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill will give public-facing staff the same level of protection that is guaranteed to emergency workers who are assaulted when doing their job. If passed, the bill would make it clear that it is an offence to assault anyone in the course of their job. The measures in the bill have been welcomed by numerous organisations, many of which have been mentioned in the debate.
Along with public awareness campaigns and workplace measures, the bill, if passed, would send out a strong message to those who fail to respect public-facing workers and the valuable service that they provide, that unacceptable behaviour will not be tolerated. The bill would also make it clear that the Parliament takes violence against workers seriously and that it is taking measures to protect employees on the front line of policing age-restricted sales.
In return for the additional pressure that we have placed on shopkeepers, we must accept responsibility for ensuring their safety from violence, threats and abuse. Given the increasing pressure on shops in the run-up to Christmas, with increased sales and more people in a hurry, I fully support the progression of the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill to stage 2. I ask members to enter further discussion on how we can give those workers greater protection, particularly at this stressful time of year. I congratulate Hugh Henry on everything that he has done and the trade unions on supporting the bill. There is a great deal of public concern out there, and the Parliament needs to send out a message that we will support the bill at stage 1 and allow it to proceed to stage 2.
16:24
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the Scottish Co-operative Party.
I have pleasure in supporting the motion in the name of Hugh Henry. I congratulate my Labour colleague on introducing this important bill. He is to be commended for his diligence and dedication.
The bill would create a new offence of assaulting a worker whose employment involves dealing with members of the public to any extent, but only when the worker is physically present in the same place as members of the public and when they are interacting directly with or providing a service to the public.
As Hugh Henry and other members have said, there can be little doubt that measures need to be taken to deal with the unacceptably high level of physical assaults on public-facing workers. In a letter that I received recently from Lawrence Wason, the Scottish divisional officer of USDAW, and Mr John Hannett, USDAW’s general secretary, the need for urgent action is crystal clear. The 2008-09 Scottish crime and justice survey found that, of adults in employment who spent time dealing with the general public, 7 per cent had experienced physical abuse in the previous 12 months. Of those, 29 per cent had experienced violence at least once a week. In addition, Queen Margaret University’s 2010 survey of young workers found that 8 per cent had been physically assaulted in the previous 12 months and that another 8 per cent had been physically assaulted with a weapon.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Those are disturbing and shameful statistics. The Parliament must not stand idly by while, as Mr Hannett of USDAW reveals,
“over a million shop workers”
are
“assaulted, threatened or abused while doing their job.”
That is unacceptable.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
None of us who works in the Parliament either as an elected member or staff expects—and far less accepts—the routine facing of threats, abuse or physical assault as we go about our daily business. That should be the same for all public-facing workers across Scotland.
Lest anyone should think that the bill and its rational proposals are backed by only side of industry, I quote David Paterson, Asda’s Scottish affairs manager:
“Asda welcomes Hugh Henry’s campaign to end violence against shopworkers. Nobody should feel threatened or intimidated when they’re simply doing their job including stopping underage sales.”
Those sensible sentiments were echoed by Morrisons, the Scottish Grocers Federation and Scotmid Co-operative Society. Mr Malcolm Brown of Scotmid said:
“MSPs need to understand that shopworkers are on the frontline when it comes to policing age-restricted sales. As a responsible retailer, we support the Scottish Government’s attempt to reduce under-age sales, however”
the Scottish Government
“must also make sure the law protects and supports our frontline colleagues.”
Quite so.
Nobody is claiming that the bill is perfect. There are areas that need to be improved. As the committee noted at paragraph 35 of its report in respect of the witnesses who were looking for parity with the provisions of the 2005 act through the inclusion in the bill of provisions on hindrance and obstruction,
“the addition of hindrance and obstruction could go some way to answering the criticism made by some of the Bill that it simply criminalises that which is already criminal under the common law.”
The place for any such amendment is, of course, stage 2. I urge members not to halt the progress of the bill today but to allow it to proceed so that the appropriate amendments to strengthen it can be made. As John Hannett of USDAW correctly said,
“the problem is far too important to be rejected by MSPs at the first hurdle.”
I urge members on all sides of the chamber to listen to the unions, the retailers and the vast majority of the general public and to join with Labour and Co-op members in supporting the general principles of this important bill, which seeks to afford greater protection to working people. A vote against the bill would correctly be viewed as a blow against the rights of working men and women. I urge all members to support the bill at decision time.
We move to wind-up speeches.
16:29
Hugh Henry introduced this member’s bill in June 2010. As any member who has tried to introduce such a bill will know, a huge amount of effort and time is required. I commend Hugh Henry for all the work that he has carried out.
As we have heard, the bill proposes the creation of a specific statutory offence of assault on a worker whose employment involves dealing with members of the public. By creating a specific offence, the bill seeks to highlight the problem of assaults on a particular group of people and to provide a deterrent to those who might otherwise commit acts of violence. I accept that, as Hugh Henry and others have said, the number of assaults is on the increase. There can be no doubt that times are a-changing. Some 15 to 20 years ago, I had a retail business of 19 shops and employed more than 120 people. In the years during which I had that business, I do not remember any of my shop staff ever being assaulted. Times have certainly changed.
During the passage of the then Scottish Executive’s Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill in 2005, some argued that statutory protection should be extended to other public service workers and/or to other workers providing a service to the public. As we all know, those proposals were rejected.
Originally, Hugh Henry consulted on a bill to introduce an offence of
“assaulting, obstructing or hindering someone who is acting in their capacity as a worker while providing a face to face service to the public.”
However, some respondents argued against including obstruction and hindrance on the grounds that that was less serious than hindering or obstructing an emergency worker and that workers had the option of withdrawing services.
I accept absolutely that individuals, wherever they are, should never feel intimidated or face abuse while they are doing their lawful job to the best of their ability. For that reason, Liberal Democrats welcome the debate to which the bill has given rise. We make it clear that more needs to be done to increase support and protection for workers who provide a public service, as at the moment abuse may be viewed by some—the number of such people may be increasing—as expected or even acceptable. That can never be the case.
As Robert Brown said, however, we are not convinced of the need to legislate on the issue. Attacks on any kind of worker are always unacceptable and I suggest that the proposed new offence adds nothing to the existing common-law offences of assault and breach of the peace that can already be brought against offenders—it does not introduce anything new. I agree with Rob Gibson, Gavin Brown and others that we need the Lord Advocate to take another look at the issue and, perhaps, to issue new sentencing guidelines for offences of this type. Perhaps the minister will say something about that when he responds to the debate.
Although we do not think that new legislation is the most appropriate method of seeking to ensure the protection of public-facing workers, we support wholly Hugh Henry’s commitment to promoting the protection of and respect for those workers. We recognise that we need to bring about a change of culture in our society to tackle such completely unacceptable behaviour.
We believe that it would be more effective to concentrate on creating a secure environment and a zero-tolerance approach, with effective and persistent prosecution of people who commit such offences. There is also scope for greater evidence sharing and partnership working, which could help to identify troublemakers and violence hotspots.
16:33
Like other members, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. I thank Hugh Henry for bringing the matter before the Parliament. He has undoubtedly worked extremely hard on the issue for many years. No one in the chamber will question his good intentions in bringing the bill before us.
It has already been said many times this afternoon, but is worth repeating, that any form of abuse of those who work with the public is unacceptable. Our principal aim should be to ensure that the law is able to deal with such behaviour as effectively as possible. We will oppose the bill tonight, but not because of any disagreement with the principles behind it. The bill highlights a serious issue, as there are far too many attacks on people who are just doing their jobs, but we are not persuaded that the bill will provide a solution to the problem and believe that it will serve only to complicate the legal framework that already exists to protect people from violence and other abuse. I will expand on those points and consider some possible alternatives.
Many people in Scotland do jobs where they potentially face threatening or abusive behaviour. Cathy Jamieson and Marilyn Livingstone both highlighted their experiences, and various members have experienced or witnessed people being given a hard time when they are just doing their job. Staff in my constituency office were recently subjected to a horrific experience involving threatening behaviour while they were trying to help a constituent. The case, however, was dealt with by the local police and the matter was brought to court under existing law.
As in so many areas of the criminal justice system, it is not that we need more law—far from it. Rather, we need to be better able to enforce the existing legislation.
The police expressed concerns to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee on the need to prove motivation for aggravated offences. If the bill were enacted, rather than having to prove just the basic offence, the police would need to provide additional evidence to prove motivation. According to the police, that would make it harder, rather than easier, to secure convictions.
I also agree with the view of the Law Society of Scotland, that the existing common law provides sufficient protection to workers who provide a service to the public, as it takes account of aggravating circumstances. The principle of an independent judiciary means that sheriffs and judges have the flexibility to take various factors into account when deciding a sentence. We erode that principle at our peril.
Of course there are exceptions to that. For more than a century, aggravations have existed in our law. It has been generally accepted that police officers, more than any other occupation, get into physical confrontations in the course of their job, but when we continually add various groups to the list of people who are protected by aggravations, we exclude, by definition, other members of society from such protection. I cannot see why there should be any distinction between workers in different sectors. The bill could discriminate between victims of crime on account of their job; that would be a serious mistake for the Parliament to make.
Mr Henry continues to raise an important issue that we must consider carefully. We must also consider carefully whether the bill is the best tool to achieve the outcome that we all seek. Like the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I do not believe that it is. As the committee’s report concludes, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should address these important issues as soon as possible,
“particularly with regards to the introduction of sentencing and prosecution guidelines and the collection of relevant and transparent data.”
It has also been suggested that the Government should run a public campaign against the behaviour that the bill seeks to address, to make it clear that an attack against workers is an attack against the communities that they serve. We would support such initiatives.
16:37
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Hugh Henry’s Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill. I pay tribute to Hugh Henry for bringing important issues to the chamber. I know that his proposals have the support of many workers throughout Scotland, as well as that of retailers.
As members have already highlighted, there is general agreement across the chamber that assaults on workers are a serious concern. I will not repeat the statistics that members have quoted from Unison and the Scottish crime and justice survey, but I was particularly interested in what Mike Pringle said, based on his experience as a retailer. That clearly underlines the fact that, over the past 20 years, assaults on shop workers and on public sector workers in general have increased. That matter is a concern to us all and it is illustrated by evidence on the ground. In Glasgow and the west of Scotland, there have been six incidents of assault on betting shop workers in recent weeks, including one in Rutherglen, in my constituency. There is general agreement across the chamber that assaults on workers are on the increase. The issue is how we deal with that.
Hugh Henry put the case strongly for the need for legislation. He said that any worker who is subject to an attack should be protected under the law and that the attack should result in a specific prosecution. That is the objective of the bill.
Those who oppose the bill have said that the current common-law provisions are adequate. I do not agree with that point of view. It is clear from the committee’s report—and it is even clear from what members said in the debate—that the common law is not serving well the workers who would be covered by the bill and that the number of convictions is not adequate.
The categories of workers who are covered by the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 have increased, so the 2005 act has been effective. In addition, assaults on health workers, in particular, have decreased.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, I do not have enough time.
You have time, if you want to take an intervention.
Okay, as long as I can develop my other points.
The point about health workers was put to the committee. However, the most recent statistics from Unison, from 22 October, show that assaults on health workers are up by 1,500 in a year and assaults on other workers are increasing at a lesser rate. Health workers are being attacked more often, despite the 2005 act.
The member’s comment shows the importance of getting proper statistics, so that we can assess the scale of problems. It is unfortunate that that point was dismissed during the cabinet secretary’s speech.
The cabinet secretary talked about alcohol. The Parliament recently passed the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010, under which the challenge 25 initiative, which I support, will be extended. Parties supported the initiative, the implementation of which will put workers in intimidating situations, but the same parties are not prepared to support a bill that would give protection to those workers. It is clear that a bus driver who is assaulted should not look to the SNP for back-up. [Interruption.] That is what we are seeing today. A person who works in a bookmaker’s should not expect the Liberal Democrats to be on their side. A person who works in an off-licence who is assaulted should not expect the Conservatives to support legislation that would protect them.
Mr Lamont said that the Conservatives support the principles of the bill, but will not support the general principles at stage 1. At stages 2 and 3 of the parliamentary legislative process, a bill can be fine-tuned so that it is fit for purpose—that is the whole point of the process. We would be able to address Robert Brown’s points about definitions at the subsequent stages and it is a matter of regret that other parties are not prepared to allow the bill to proceed through those stages so that it can be fine-tuned and made fit for purpose.
The bill is worthy of support. It has the support of many workers and retailers in Scotland. It will be sad if the other parties vote it down at 5 o’clock.
16:43
I acknowledge the work of Hugh Henry, members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and all the staff who assisted them.
Every single MSP, across every political party, regards with abhorrence the crime of assault, no matter against whom it is committed. Any assault, on any human being, is wrong. Assault is criminalised. As far as I know, it has always been criminalised, since before the days of Baron Hume. I suspect that the sentences that were imposed in those days were very strong beer indeed.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I am going to make progress.
We should be taken at face value as being entirely sincere when we say that we all want to do everything that is possible, practical and effective to help shop workers in the job that they do.
“Unfortunately, there are a minority of individuals who would wish to jeopardise the provision of these Services”—
which we take for granted—
“through verbally and physically abusing shop staff. This of course is completely unacceptable in any circumstance”.
I have just read extracts from my foreword to the “Violence Reduction Handbook”. Throughout Scotland, 5,500 copies have been distributed to people who are directly in the front line. One of the committee’s recommendations, as Rob Gibson said, was to have a campaign and, to the extent that the handbook has been distributed, we have already had a campaign. More can be done, but it makes a good start.
The handbook offers practical advice about encouraging
“employees to report all forms of ... violence”—
there may be under reporting at the moment, as some members said. It also contains advice such as:
“Remove the motivation or incentive for violence”
and
“Create a culture of respect”,
as well as practical advice, such as to “Install ... physical barriers” to protect staff in a concrete way. Such protections include secure premises, counters and locked areas for staff to provide an actual element of physical protection. The handbook also recommends the use of security video cameras, mirrors or CCTV cameras where appropriate and that workers avoid lone working.
I have just read out some extracts from the handbook but, with respect to members, it seems to me that little has been said in the debate about those practical steps that we need to take. As I have said in previous debates, at the end of the day, law is simply words on a page; it does not protect people in any physical sense. It does not protect a shop worker against someone who is out of his mind on drink or drugs and is intent on committing an assault. Such a person certainly does not stop and say, “Oh dear, there is a protection of workers act; I had better stop right now.”
Every member of the Parliament most certainly regards every citizen in Scotland—shop workers, emergency workers, elderly people, children and people with a disability—as deserving of the protection of the law in so far as it provides protection. However, the bill does no more than simply replicate the law as it stands—no one has contradicted that—and I imagine that that, in part, was the reason why, when the Labour Party was in government, it declined to do what it asks the Parliament to do today.
16:47
Fergus Ewing referred to the foreword that he had written. It is encouraging to see that at least one person in Scotland has read that foreword. I hope that others will follow the minister’s exhortation.
A number of points were raised, but James Kelly raised a significant one. A number of members said in their speeches that they support the general principles of the bill but simply do not agree with the specifics. James Kelly is right that if members support the general principles of the bill they should vote for it at stage 1 and allow us to sort out at stage 2 some of the issues that cause concern.
Fergus Ewing said that one of the problems is that the bill would simply replicate the law as it stands. There is an issue to do with obstruction and hindrance, which could be addressed at stage 2. When I drafted the bill, there were arguments for not including hindrance and obstruction in the offence, and others for including them. If that matter alone is the problem, we could address it at stage 2, but where would we be if we introduced such provisions? We would be in exactly the same position as we are in with the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005.
Fergus Ewing has also just said that there is no need for additional legislation because the bill does not add to what the common law offers. However, we heard Kenny MacAskill say at committee that he supported the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 and we have heard a number of other members say the same today, even though the act did not add to what the common law says. There is therefore an inconsistency in their argument. It would be better if people were up front and honest and just said that they do not agree.
I was disappointed to hear Mike Pringle’s speech. It is only a short two or three weeks since he and I were pictured holding the bill, when he left the trade unions, the Scottish Grocers Federation and other retailers organisations with the impression that he was going to support it. Of course people are entitled to change their minds, and of course people come under pressure in their parties from their whips and party discipline, but even at this stage, I hope that he will reflect on the impression that he gave to others.
Kenny MacAskill said that the bill is far too wide and that it would protect so many people that it would simply cause confusion in the law. That point was echoed to some extent by Stuart McMillan, who said that he could not see why factory workers on the shop floor would not be covered but the managers would, or why shipyard workers would not be covered but the managers would. Perhaps he was just being disingenuous, or maybe there is genuine confusion. A bill that seeks to protect those who serve the public has to have a definition of workers who are serving the public. If shipyard or factory workers are assaulted in the course of their work but are not engaged in serving the public, of course they would not be covered. Why should they be? That is not the intention of the bill. However, if a shipyard worker was out serving the public, for example by going down to Govan and giving a public talk on what they are doing in building warships or, indeed, on why they should be building them, and in the course of doing that on behalf of his company is assaulted, then of course he would become covered by the definition. We just need to be a bit more sensible about what we are trying to do when we propose or knock down the arguments.
Bill Butler was absolutely right to say that there are areas where the bill could be improved and that there are arguments for and against. However, if that is the genuine belief of members, I repeat my view that they should not destroy the bill at this point, but let us proceed to the next stage.
Robert Brown said that if there is a problem, then the Liberal Democrats are reluctant to say that the way to deal with it is simply to jump to new laws. I ask him to forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that he voted for the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, which did exactly that. I cannot see how he can logically justify voting for that bill but not for the bill that we are debating today. At least the Conservatives have had a consistent view, in not supporting this type of legislation. There is no consistency in the Liberal Democrats’ position—although perhaps we should not be surprised about that.
Hugh Henry will recall that the logic on which the Liberal Democrats defend their objection to the bill is exactly the same logic with which the Labour Party, which was in Government at the time, opposed the introduction of extensions to the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. Is not that correct?
I recall many of the disagreements that we had. One of the problems that we had arose because of the nature of coalition. The Conservatives are now finding out the joys of working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and just how parties are constrained. One problem that we had was that the Liberal Democrats would not allow the boat to be pushed out further, if members will allow me to continue with the shipyard analogy. Let us talk about what coalition brings. Maybe Labour and the Conservatives can mull over its joys and some of the problems that arise.
I turn to the points that Fergus Ewing made about practical action. I accept what he said about that, and I commend him for his commitment to it. Practical action has a place, but the same argument could be made on any proposed legislation. Fergus Ewing said that the law is not just words on a page. Of course that is the case: no law is just words on a page—it has significance only if it is followed up by practical action. As a minister, I supported the action that followed the passing of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, and I note that Fergus Ewing has committed himself to that, too, but he should not use the argument that practical action is needed as justification for opposing the bill. Practical action is always needed in the aftermath of the passing of legislation. Practical action will be needed to ensure that the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010 has any practical impact. The minister’s argument is disingenuous.
I was encouraged by Kenny MacAskill’s fulsome praise for the bill, but he said that even though it was well intentioned, it would not make a difference and he could not possibly support a bill that would make no difference. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but he might have been one of the SNP members who voted for the legislation on fur farms in Scotland. I am still waiting to see what practical effect that will have. Maybe it is the case that he will vote for some bills that will have no practical benefit and against others that he thinks will have no practical benefit. There is a wee bit of inconsistency and disingenuousness there.
What do we have? Unfortunately, it would appear that we have parties lining up along party lines. I regret that that is the case. [Interruption.]
Order. There are far too many conversations going on among members who have not been in the chamber for the debate. Please desist.
I think that it was Kenny MacAskill or Fergus Ewing who quoted Victim Support Scotland, but a wide range of organisations in Scotland support greater protection for workers. I can point to the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses, Asda, Morrisons, Scotmid, the Co-op, as well as a wide range of trade unions including Unison, Unite the Union, USDAW, the CWU and the Educational Institute of Scotland—which supports action to protect teachers—and a wide range of voluntary organisations. All those organisations think that action is necessary to support their members of staff in delivering services to the public.
I ask members who argue that the bill is too wide—which, apparently, is not something that can be dealt with at stage 2—or that it would have no practical effect, to examine their consciences. They should examine what they have already voted for in the Parliament and look very critically at some of the legislative proposals that they will support in the future.
The long and short of it is that the bill represents the culmination of a campaign over a number of years by trade unions who are desperate to protect the members whom they represent and who believe that the Parliament should take a stand by saying that it supports workers. As others have, I have mentioned the implications of our alcohol legislation. We think that it is good enough for shop workers to put themselves on the front line and take abuse in support of the Parliament. If that is the case, the Parliament should do something to support the shop workers who are supposed to make a difference in solving Scotland’s alcohol problem.
I appeal to members to think again and to allow the bill to go to stage 2. Please, do not turn your backs on those Scottish workers who provide vital services the length and breadth of Scotland.