Hansard

I am pleased to contribute to this stage 1 debate on the bill. Daniel Johnson knows that I am sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve, as we have discussed the matter on and off for the past two or three years.

I recognise the ills that he seeks to address, as I have been a retail worker at various times—as no doubt many across this chamber have—and was subjected to the sort of behaviour about which the committee has heard, although mercifully not of the severity that still far too many must endure.

Those who have been retail workers will recognise the issues that the bill covers, given the Scottish Grocers Federation’s report that 99 per cent of workers it surveyed had experienced violence and physical abuse, and USDAW’s evidence that a Scottish shop worker is abused, threatened or assaulted more than 20 times a year on average.

I witnessed a lone petrol station worker being subjected to a torrent of abuse late one evening around three weeks ago on the outskirts of Edinburgh, simply because his till had crashed and failed to register a loyalty card. I spoke to him afterwards to offer support and he was clearly shaken and scared. Did he report the incident to his boss or the police, as I suggested? He possibly did not—for reasons that I will return to later.

It is not difficult for the Scottish Conservatives to support the principles of the bill, which are about increasing the protection for workers in the retail sector, as the online executive summary to the bill suggests. I feel, however, that a number of areas ought to be explored in greater depth.

My colleagues will elaborate on these throughout the debate, but let me suggest some thoughts on which the member might wish to reflect and perhaps come back to when he closes the debate.

I noticed that, among others, the Scottish Government’s memorandum, the Crown Office and the minister herself suggest that the new offence would not significantly expand current legal protection and that provisions in existing criminal law cover many of the proposed elements. Regardless of whether that position is accepted, I note that the member’s response throughout the process has been that the key is to send a message that would

“communicate our priorities to the public”

and

“reflect the seriousness of the crimes that are perpetrated and the duties and obligations that we place on people”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, 13 May 2020; c 9.]

Let us leave aside the question whether the primary aim of the law should be to send a message. In her evidence to the committee, the minister said that

“the sending of a message is a sort of secondary benefit" .—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, 6 May 2020; c 5.]

I am not readily persuaded of that. If the proposed bill does not fundamentally create anything new, the member ought to ask why the messaging of the current law does not work. Should we not work to establish where the current failure lies and what is required to fix it? The answer might well not be more law.

Should we not be asking whether retail workers are reporting incidents? Daniel Johnson referred earlier to the USDAW survey, which found that only 34 per cent of victims report incidents. If they are not reporting them, why not? Is it because they are afraid of the consequences? Is it because, as the Scottish Co-operative Party suggests, they are not being taken seriously? Is it because they are unaware of the current law and their rights? Is the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland right that only one in 10 businesses report incidents as a crime? If so, why is that? Is it ignorance of the existing law? Is it that the police do not have the time or resources to properly combat the problem? If so, that is a much bigger issue, which will not simply be addressed by the proposed new law.

Are there problems at prosecution level? Are cases falling on an evidential basis? If so, why? Will the proposed requirement for evidence to be from a single source address that? In addition, what message does the current sentencing regime give? What sentences are being handed down for the offences at the moment? Do those fail to send a message that that behaviour is reprehensible and will not be tolerated?

The Association of Convenience Stores believes that the proposed offence

“would act as a deterrent”,

but presumably that would be the case only if the sentences given were seen to be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. However, the ACS states:

“The maximum sentence ... may not be high enough”.

The ACS might be right, because the penalty under the bill could be, as we heard from the minister, imprisonment for 12 months or a fine. However, it will not be lost on anyone watching and listening to this debate that just last year the Scottish Parliament voted, with the notable exception of the Scottish Conservatives, for a presumption against 12-month prison sentences. That means that the criminals who carry out the acts that the bill addresses, who the minister described as committing lower-end offences—I know that she did not mean that pejoratively—do not risk prison, and they know that they will get a fine or community sentence instead. However, we already know—and Daniel Johnson knows this very well—that one in three community sentences are not completed and one in four contain no element of work.

I ask Daniel Johnson to muse on that throughout the debate and address in his closing speech the inadequacies and myriad failures of the soft-touch justice approach pursued by the Government—I will welcome his conversion with open arms. Although that is perhaps a forlorn hope, it would be useful if he were to note the importance of addressing those underlying questions and acknowledge the importance of enhanced education, training and public awareness as crucial for the bill, as the committee convener flagged up earlier.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill at decision time tonight.