Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 24 September 2020
Without doubt, the bill has a commendable purpose. As I was convener of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee during the stage 1 process, I would like to thank all those who gave evidence, and the committee clerks for all their hard work in producing our report.
I had the opportunity to speak to Mr Johnson, and there is absolutely no doubting his commitment to addressing the issue. He was right, in his argument with me, to say that there was merit in introducing the bill—to raise awareness of the problems, as much as anything. The minister highlighted that, too.
The evidence that the committee received left us in no doubt that we have a problem. Dr Cheema of the Scottish Grocers Federation gave moving evidence on his experiences after coming to Scotland in 1988. He described how he had been
“spat at, called names, threatened, attacked and had”
his
“tyres slashed and ... windows broken”.—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, 3 March 2020; c 23.]
The Co-operative Group’s submission described
“unprecedented levels of violent, weaponised attacks”
on its staff.
The impact on retail workers is not just physical. Their mental health suffers as a result of trauma and intimidation. It is deplorable that the culture in our communities has brought us to this debate.
It is no surprise that there is strong support for the bill from the retail sector. The comment that struck me most strongly in the evidence session was from a representative of the Co-operative Group, who said:
“Honestly, I think that we all agree that retail workers do not believe that the police care or that the criminal justice system cares, and they are not sure whether elected representatives care about them, because so little is being done.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, 3 March 2020; c 26.]
Our debate should send one clear message: we care.
However, the challenge is that this is a bill to create law, but for the most part, it duplicates and crosses over existing law. The provision for the new statutory offence would carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment for up to 12 months, and/or a fine of £10,000, as we have heard.
We also recognise that the current Government supports the presumption against short sentences and that the bill does not significantly extend current legal protections. That said, I am delighted that Daniel Johnson has worked with the Government to address the issue and remove “obstruct and hinder” from section 1. Although that would have been a new protection, I do not think that any committee member was convinced that it would be workable, because it would set the bar too low and create more problems than solutions.
I was particularly struck by the fact that 284 age-restricted products are sold in shops and that they are often flashpoints for the abuse of shop workers. I agree that if we are asking retail workers to uphold our laws, there is a duty to ensure that they are supported and protected for doing so; as such, an aggravator should be applied when a worker is upholding a statutory duty. Andy Wightman rather stole my thunder on that, because he eloquently described why the committee felt the way that it did. The fact that that is now being taken forward is welcome but I, too, wish that it had been inserted into legislation such as the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015. That could have saved us a lot of problems now.
The committee heard conflicting evidence on how the current law is upheld. Police Scotland was clear that it takes all reports of violence and intimidation seriously, but we also heard that two thirds of incidents are allegedly not attended by the police. That gap in perception is clearly not helping retail workers’ confidence.
I am in no doubt that action needs to be taken to educate and raise awareness of the issue. Our citizens need to understand that we will not tolerate this behaviour, but punishment should be the last resort. We need to target the behaviour at the root cause—a view that is supported by the Law Society of Scotland.
If I have any concern, it is that the bill recognises the problem but will not necessarily offer a solution. However, I thank Daniel Johnson for introducing the bill and I wish him all the best in its progress through Parliament.
16:37