Plenary, 25 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 25, 2003

Official Report 693KB pdf

---

Respect for Shop Workers Day

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-210, in the name of Kenneth Macintosh, on respect for shop workers day. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the level of violence and abuse that shopworkers deal with on a daily basis; further notes the recent survey by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) that found that 47% of those responding to the survey reported physical attacks or assaults on staff in the last 12 months, that 72% reported staff being threatened with violence, that in one in four stores threats are being made every week, that in one-third of stores verbal abuse is a daily event, that almost 50% of staff have taken time off work as a result of violence and that stress-related problems are common and include sickness, insomnia, headaches and clinical depression; commends the USDAW campaign, "Freedom from Fear"‘ and recognises its main objectives as raising awareness of the level of violence and abuse, making the workplace safer and protecting both shoppers and staff, and supports "Respect for Shopworkers Day" on 17 September 2003 aimed at preventing abusive behaviour, highlighting the support that retail companies can, and do, give their staff and encouraging the public to show respect for shopworkers.

I thank the Parliament for finding the time for this debate and for tackling the serious and worrying problem of violence and abuse against shop workers throughout Scotland. A great many members have not only supported my motion to make shops free from fear, but have gone much further and joined the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers in campaigning locally to raise awareness of the issue.

When I launched the campaign in my constituency I heard many stories, one of which helps to illuminate the problem that we face. The manager of one of my local Safeway stores, who has implemented several measures to protect his staff, talked about the last time that he was punched while at work. It happened when he was trying to stop a shoplifter; he described the incident in rather embarrassed tones as if it were an occupational hazard and he should have known better. It is true that shoplifting is often the spark that sets off verbal or physical abuse, but that is exactly what we must challenge.

The evidence from the shop workers union, from the Scottish retail crime survey and from surveys conducted by the Co-operative Group is that violence against shop staff is symptomatic of a much greater problem. Shop workers throughout Scotland have to cope daily with unacceptable levels of abuse and threatening behaviour that range from rudeness to serious physical assault. At one extreme, attacks on shop workers can average one for every hour of the working day. However, the culture that underpins that is such that staff in more than a third of our stores can expect to experience verbal abuse every day.

The effect on staff, as members can imagine, is debilitating. That is the primary focus of today's debate and our wider campaign. However, the problem affects many more people than just shop staff. The information that the Co-op collected suggests that staff in small community-based retail shops are the most likely to become the victims of crime. I am sure that many members are aware of examples in their constituencies of local shops that become a focal point where gangs of young people hang out in the evenings.

Is the member aware that that behaviour happens in rural areas as well as in urban areas? I took the campaign petition round from Shetland to Moray over the summer and collected more than 1,000 signatures from people in support of shop workers. I wanted to make that point before I have to leave to catch my train.

I thank Maureen Macmillan for her contribution. I could not fail to take an intervention from someone who is sitting next to me, but she makes a serious point. I am aware of the situation in the more urban areas, but the problem for communities in rural areas such as the Highlands is serious. Her experience also perhaps reflects the number of Co-op stores in the Highlands that took part in the survey.

The behaviour that we are talking about can be extremely intimidating for shop workers who are on the receiving end of a series of incidents and petty thefts. At certain times of the day, some shops become a no-go area for elderly residents and many other people. The very future of those shops is threatened by such behaviour and those that survive often begin to resemble Fort Knox rather than a convenience store. That kind of shop is often one of the few local amenities, so not only the staff, but local communities and shoppers suffer.

Some people ask how the kind of situation that I have described relates to the majority of shoppers and law-abiding citizens. The truth is that there is a spectrum of unacceptable behaviour, ranging from the mildly offensive to the most aggressive. It is up to us all to challenge and change social attitudes and the them-and-us mentality that too often describes our relationship with shop staff.

That is why I am pleased to support USDAW in its national campaign to give respect to shop workers. In representing its members, USDAW has worked in partnership with Government and Parliament to tackle this chronic problem and I congratulate it on its efforts. I particularly want to thank Frank Whitelaw, Ruth Stoney and the many others who have brought the campaign to my attention and that of my colleagues.

I hope that the Scottish Executive's clear commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour will create the culture of mutual respect that the campaign is designed to promote. It is quite clear that benefits will flow from the prevention of some forms of petty criminality and offensive behaviour in relation to retail crime. The example from my constituency that I gave earlier highlighted how one incident can quickly and easily lead to more serious offences. The survey that was conducted by the Co-op suggests that more than two thirds of cases involving violence against staff occur when staff are trying to prevent shoplifting. If we can clamp down on petty crime and curb the use of abusive language and behaviour that undermines the respect that we are all due, we will reduce the number of more serious offences.

As was said in a recent debate, I believe that our reform of licensing laws following the Nicholson review will provide another vehicle for dealing with the particular difficulties that surround off-licences. It is worth noting that one of the most commonly cited flashpoints for abuse, or worse, in stores is when young people are refused alcohol. I should also mention the Government's continuing commitment to closed-circuit television which, in my constituency, has done a lot to improve the safety of shoppers and shop workers in Barrhead, the Broom shops and in Thornliebank Main Street.

Constructive measures are in place and more will follow; legislation on antisocial behaviour is due to be debated later this year. However, as I mentioned earlier, today's debate is also about raising awareness. For that reason, I am particularly pleased that our participative Parliament has made it possible for everyone to join in our discussion through the Parliament's interactive forum. I thank my colleagues, Sarah Boyack, Christine May and Maureen Macmillan—it is just coincidence that they surround me at the moment—for posting messages on the forum. I urge other members to do so as well. The forum, which can be accessed through the Parliament's website—www.scottish.parliament.uk—will be open for several months and I hope that many others will make their views known. We want to hear people's opinions, whether they are shop workers who have been on the receiving end of threats and abuse or shoppers who have witnessed that sort of intimidating and unacceptable behaviour. If people make suggestions as to how we can tackle this problem, we can ensure that our shops are free from fear and that our shop workers are given the respect that they deserve.

This is an important issue and I congratulate Kenneth Macintosh on securing the debate.

Shop workers face a genuine problem and it is important to talk about it, but it is part of a wider problem. Recently, I have had discussions with many groups—firefighters, teachers, social workers, housing officials, benefits officials, bus drivers, and nurses and hospital staff—about violence. Violence can be seen in many forms. There is road rage, footballers who hit each other, football supporters who hit each other, bullying at school, bullying at work, domestic violence and so on. I do not know about domestic violence, which has a long history, but I think that there has been an increase in various forms of violence in recent years. There is now a climate of violence. Partly, that is to do with alcohol and drugs, but there is a wider issue relating to violence in our society. When I mentioned that to a colleague a few minutes ago, she suggested that it was a result of television programmes and films. I have no doubt that they contribute to the problem, but I think that there is something more fundamental in our society that seems increasingly to predispose people to violence.

There is a big problem with alcohol. After a bit of pushing, the Executive set up the Nicholson committee, which has produced a good report. The ministers might want to consider setting up such a committee to examine the problem of violence. Although Kenneth Macintosh is quite right to raise this issue on behalf of shop workers, we must remember that the issue affects firefighters and so on as well and I think that there is an overall issue to which I have no solution. If we set up a group to examine the problem from a number of different directions, we might find ways of reducing violence.

Obviously, if we had more police, it would help in certain areas. We have to address the predisposition to violence. On the back of Ken Macintosh's excellent motion, I suggest that we take a wider approach to the problem.

I will be brief because I had not intended to speak in the debate. However, it is important that everyone gets involved and I am disappointed that some of the other parties have not stayed for the debate or are not participating.

I have to declare a vested interest—I enjoy shopping. Retail therapy does everybody the world of good. However, I want to go into a shop and feel safe, and I want the people who are working there and serving me to feel safe. I congratulate Ken Macintosh on securing the debate on what is an important issue.

These days, people work longer hours and rush into shops to get what they need before flying back out. They pay little attention to what is going on around them or to the people who work day in and day out to keep the shops busy and to ensure that we can buy what we want. The people who serve us are often at risk of violent or racial attacks. Those people not only work in the shops but live locally and are not merely at risk of violence or of being attacked in the shop where they work. A person who refuses to sell alcohol to a group of young people may very well live along the road from them. There is therefore a double risk to shop workers. USDAW's freedom from fear campaign is vital. We are not talking only about people who work in the shops in our communities—shops that are often the heart of those communities—but about people who live in our communities.

This debate is very important. We must continue to encourage retailers to support their staff and to provide appropriate training for people to handle certain situations. We all have a responsibility if hassle is taking place in a shop. We should not just walk past; we should all say that all behaviour such as violence, aggression and shouting at shopkeepers is unacceptable. We have a responsibility not only to ensure that we feel safe when we go shopping or go for a wee bit of retail therapy, but to ensure that the people who are there to serve us eight, nine, 10 or 11 hours a day also feel safe. We must do the best that we can to ensure their safety.

No significance should be read into the fact that I am on the front bench. [Laughter.]

It took a long time, Alex.

Or into the fact that no one is behind me.

I am to the left.

As always.

Yes, and Linda is leaving too—to go, I think, to Inverness.

I congratulate Ken Macintosh on securing the debate on this important subject. I too declare an interest: prior to becoming my secretary 10 years ago, my wife was a store detective for Boots and Woolworths. She has had direct experience of the kind of activity that goes on.

The risk of violence is much greater in certain areas, but it is also much greater in certain types of shops. Companies such as Boots have pharmacies on their premises and, unfortunately, where there is a pharmacy, there is a great tendency for people—especially people who are dependent on drugs—to go in and, if they do not get exactly what they are looking for, to threaten staff or to go even further. As Cathy Peattie pointed out, such people can threaten other customers as well. It is a growing problem and it will require special attention if it is to be dealt with properly.

There are certain times of the week at which people are most at risk; for example, on a Friday or Saturday night. Somebody who works in a fish and chip shop, a fast-food takeaway or an all-night grocery shop or bakery is particularly at risk.

As Donald Gorrie said, people sometimes come in who are out of their skulls, which is when the violent side of their nature takes over. Often those people are perfectly normal at every other time of the week, but if they have one too many it can tip the balance and the worst side of their character comes out. Very often the people who are on the receiving end are the shop assistants who work late at night, sometimes in extremely frightening circumstances. I live in Ayr and can think of particular parts of the town where on a Saturday night or early Sunday morning it is frightening to walk, never mind to work in a shop where groups of youngsters come in and exhibit threatening behaviour.

There is no easy answer. As Donald Gorrie said, drug and alcohol abuse, which were mentioned in a debate earlier today, are clearly major issues to be addressed. Very often, where there is violence, there is drug or alcohol abuse. It is ironic that there is probably more alcohol abuse involved, because people who engage in drug taking and dealing in illicit products tend not to be such exhibitionists. However, people are very much in the public eye when they have had a lot to drink.

We can see the effects of too much drink in any hospital, particularly in urban Scotland, but also in many parts of rural Scotland, late on a Saturday night or early on a Sunday morning. Those effects relate not only to violence against shop staff; they are often the result of fights that break out between individuals or gangs of youngsters.

We should put on record our gratitude to the Scottish Retail Consortium, which has been extremely active in highlighting the particular problems from which its members suffer. I know that it has been in touch with every member of the Parliament to highlight the issue.

This problem is increasing and the people at the receiving end tend to be among the lowest-paid members of our community. Very often they have to work unsocial hours and are trying to meet the needs of their families as well as earn a decent income, which is not always an easy set of objectives to meet. Those workers are very often women, which makes them particularly vulnerable in the kind of situations that I have described.

Donald Gorrie's idea of setting up something akin to the Nicholson committee to examine the issue, which Ken Macintosh is right to raise, is not a bad one. I hope that the Executive will consider that proposition in due course so that we can not only investigate the problem in Scotland but learn lessons from overseas. Other countries have experienced similar difficulties and dealt with them in different ways. I congratulate Ken Macintosh on raising the issue and hope that we will now have some action to deal with what is a serious problem.

I have heard nothing so far with which I could disagree, with one exception: unlike Cathy Peattie, I detest shopping. However, that is hardly the issue.

Ken Macintosh is to be congratulated on bringing the matter to the chamber. Donald Gorrie referred to a whole litany of situations that can become violent and he was correct to do so. However, violence against shop workers, like domestic violence, is unusual.

We all have certain life choices. If we are frightened of being assaulted at a football match, we do not go to football matches. If we are worried about violence at a particular bar, we do not go to that bar. However, people have to live in their homes and they have to earn a living. As Alex Neil said, for many people who seek to earn a living by working in shops, that living can be hazardous and unpleasant.

The question is what we do about the problem. I hesitate to be too political in a members' business debate, but we had an interesting discussion this morning and some of the approaches that were suggested then might have some validity in tackling violence against shop workers. However, the problem is special and likely to become more common. Society has changed in recent years—we are more involved in the 24-hour society. More people work unusual shifts that mean that they require goods and services at times that were formerly regarded as unsocial hours during which everybody was asleep in their beds. Many shops are now open 24 hours a day, which makes shopkeepers and shop workers particularly vulnerable.

Some shops—particularly those in country areas—are isolated. Even in urban situations, shop workers are vulnerable because the shops are in areas where people might be less than enthusiastic to become involved when a shopkeeper is under attack, for fear that they might be subject to reprisals in the event of prosecution. Ken Macintosh underlined the fact that many shopkeepers are assaulted when they try to intervene in cases of shoplifting on their premises. In my experience, that is true.

We must consider how to adapt our policing system to assist people in such situations. I would like community police officers to drop into shops every now and again to say hello. The neds will probably see them going in, which will have a deterrent effect and give shopkeepers some reassurance.

I demur at the suggestion that we are all responsible. We are not all responsible, because the vast majority of people do not assault shopkeepers. However, Cathy Peattie was right to say that we cannot always walk past on the other side of the road. We should be more involved, but I acknowledge that factors prevent people from becoming so.

I dealt with deterrence at length this morning and I see no reason to repeat what I said. Ken Macintosh was correct to highlight the difficulties faced by shopkeepers and others. In Glasgow, one of the problems is that fire crews and bus crews have been attacked. Shopkeepers form another section of society that—rightly—looks in our direction for additional protection.

The Executive is considering many matters. As I said this morning, once those issues have received appropriate attention from the Executive, we will see whether the Executive's measures work. We will judge those measures and the Executive by their success or failure.

As other members have said, the debate is welcome. I do not apologise for repeating many of the points that other members have made, because they deserve to be repeated. Violence has been discussed in the chamber many times, but as far as I know this is the first time that violence against this section of the working population has been debated.

I am a member of the Co-operative Party and the Co-operative Group supports the campaign hugely. I will introduce a note of slight historic interest, as my situation is a bit like that of Alex Neil. My father-in-law was a store pharmacist for the Co-op in Abbeyview in Dunfermline and my mother-in-law worked in the shop, which was in an area that became difficult. If I go further back, I can say that, when I was 15, I had a Christmas job at Woolworths in Dublin. To save members from working it out, I will say that that was 40 years ago.

Although the violence in those places was not as overt, organised and vicious as it can be today, it nevertheless occurred. Staff were vulnerable and store owners and managers were less aware of the need for adequate protection and staff training. The work done by the retail trade to put in place staff training in personal safety, in how to deal with aggressive situations and in effective customer care, which allows staff to deal with an aggressive customer, is to be welcomed.

At the time of night when the neds are active, the rest of us are often at home, because we have done our shopping or taken our car to the 24-hour supermarket. Those who perpetrate the violence and the intimidation generally wait until the shop is empty. Why would they go when the community police are there? Of course they would not. Why would they go when it is full of those who are bigger, tougher and stronger than they are?

Just last week, I heard the harrowing story of someone who lives in the local community and works in the local shop. After she had given evidence in an antisocial behaviour case to do with housing, she was subjected to extreme intimidation and physical threats against her family by the perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour, who waited until the shop was empty and then went in and got her on her own. She had good reason to be terrified. Although the police took action and the individual concerned had been served with an antisocial behaviour order, it was still necessary to prove that there had been a breach of the order. Many members will want to find out what protection the new bill will give and whether it will provide for a quicker reaction in circumstances in which there is a breach of an antisocial behaviour order.

On the abuse of licensed grocers, the Nicholson committee report and the evidence that Margaret Curran took over the summer as she went round the country have shown that alcohol plays a major part in violent behaviour on our streets and in our shops.

What might the remedies be? I have already referred to the antisocial behaviour orders; other members have referred to the review of licensing that will follow the Nicholson report. Perhaps it will be possible for the new antisocial behaviour legislation to include specific provisions for retail premises.

Closed-circuit television works, but its use is more difficult when the shop is in an isolated area, which, as Bill Aitken said, might not necessarily be in a rural setting. A precinct in my constituency in Glenrothes, where there is a town centre and small local communities, is an example of such an area. Human rights legislation makes the process of getting covert CCTV orders and warrants issued longer and more difficult, which means that the intimidation and violence often go on far longer than one would wish.

I hope that the new bill will consider young perpetrators—those who create havoc at the ages of eight, nine and 10. Other members have mentioned racial motivation, so I will not labour the point, other than to say that that makes the crime worse.

My community police officers drop in but, as I have said, the perpetrators wait until the officers have gone away and then just come out of their houses, because they live round the corner.

The impact that crime against shop workers has on retail sales, which are a huge barometer of the strength of our economy, cannot be overestimated. It is reckoned that shoplifting amounts to millions of pounds being walked out with every year. The rest of us pay for that in increased prices. For the economy's sake alone, it is necessary to reduce the amount of violence and theft in shops.

I thank Ken Macintosh for securing the debate and I thank the Parliament for allowing time for the subject to be debated. I hope that the issue will be tackled in legislation.

Like Christine May, I thank Ken Macintosh for giving Parliament the opportunity to debate a serious problem that is all too evident in far too many communities throughout Scotland. As Maureen Macmillan has indicated, violence against shop workers is a problem not only in urban settings but in rural settings. Too many shop workers, who are vital to our economy and to the fabric of many of our communities, have to suffer unacceptable behaviour, abuse and sometimes violence.

I also want to thank the members of the Scottish Labour party, the Co-operative Party, the Scottish National Party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats who have stayed behind to participate in the debate to show their concern for, and solidarity with, shop workers. It is right that we put on record that we are not prepared to accept that type of behaviour from anyone anywhere in our society.

We know that retail is vital and it is right that we take steps to protect those who work in retail. Retail and wholesale account for 10 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product. A quarter of all large firms and 15 per cent of employee jobs are associated with retail and wholesale, so it is not an insignificant sector. Retail also plays a vital role in our communities. Sometimes, the post office, the chemist and the local corner shop or supermarket are what bind different sections of a community together. People use shops to purchase goods or services, but they also use them to socialise, to meet friends and to exchange banter and gossip with the people who work there. Shops can be very much part of a community's identity.

It cannot be right that people who work in shops—who do so not only to earn a living but to provide a service to the community—should be left exposed and vulnerable to intimidation or threats. Not only can such intimidation drive shop workers from their jobs, at significant economic cost to themselves and their families, but they can put shops under threat. In too many communities, we have seen what happens when stores go to the wall and nothing is left behind. That can have a debilitating effect.

I declare an interest as an USDAW member.

The shop workers who are affected are often young people who are experiencing their first job and who may be working part time or doing a Saturday job. Does the minister agree that they need to be protected from the violence that they encounter to ensure that their future working lives do not suffer and that they respond positively to their experience as shop workers? Can we look to the Executive to protect those workers? All of us should join together to say that violence against shop workers is unacceptable.

I agree entirely with Mary Mulligan. All shop workers should expect that level of support and protection, but it is right that we look at how we cherish young workers who are starting out on their economic life. We need to ensure that they are not put off, intimidated or frightened; we need to grow their talents for the future. Mary Mulligan is right to highlight how the problem particularly affects young workers.

In addition to thanking Ken Macintosh, I need to thank a number of organisations for the work that they are doing. First and foremost, the shop workers union USDAW is to be commended for the significant amount of work that it has invested in highlighting an issue that is clearly of concern to many of its members. As Ken Macintosh mentioned, Frank Whitelaw in Scotland, with the support of others such as Ruth Stoney, has worked tirelessly to bring the campaign to the attention of shop workers throughout Scotland. It would have been wrong, however, to limit the campaign to shop workers. Rightly, USDAW has taken the campaign out of the shop and into the community to show how we are all part and parcel of the solution. The response from communities throughout Scotland has been overwhelming. USDAW is to be congratulated and thanked for campaigning on behalf of its members and for bringing the issue to our attention.

As Alex Neil said, the Scottish Retail Consortium has been supportive, as has the British Retail Consortium. A number of individual companies and stores are associated with that activity, but I specifically want to put on record some of the work that has been done by the Co-op stores throughout Scotland. Although many stores have supported the USDAW campaign, some have been a bit reluctant to allow the publicity to be displayed in their stores because they do not want the public to think that their stores are unsafe or threatening, despite the fact that the brunt of the problems are borne by the staff.

To its credit, the Co-op, an organisation that has a fine record of campaigning and activity on issues such as fair trade and justice in this country and beyond, has allowed USDAW to go into its stores, set up stalls and take signatures. The Co-op has demonstrated that it has a responsibility to its staff and to the wider community, and it is to be commended for that.

I have seen at first hand the work that has been done in Co-op stores. Last week I visited a Co-op store in Paisley with the local USDAW shop steward, Audrey Hendrie. People were queuing up to sign the petition because they wanted to manifest their determination to do what little they can to support shop workers. I thank everyone who was involved.

Several things have been done. The First Minister has already pledged his support for the campaign and Cathy Jamieson has also been associated with it. The Executive is getting right behind what the campaign is trying to achieve through a number of specific measures on antisocial behaviour and other proposals for legislation.

Important though legislation is, it is not just about that. It is about all of us helping to change the culture and behaviour of the communities in which we live. I thank everyone who has been involved and assure them that the Executive is fully committed to doing what it can in partnership with those who are involved in the campaign. I am sure that some good will come out of that campaign in the coming months.

Meeting closed at 17:46.