§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
10.28 pm§ Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab)There are few, if any, sectors of the work force with which the general public come into contact more often than shop workers. Perhaps we tend to take shop workers for granted because being served in a shop is such an everyday occurrence for us. We should not. Any work that involves face-to-face contact with the public is not easy and all the signs show that it is becoming more demanding, more difficult and, worryingly, more dangerous.
I first became fully aware of this issue when I was approached by my local representative of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Lesley Maddison. She handed me a petition that highlighted the growing incidence of unacceptable violence against shop workers. It showed that my constituents were concerned about the problem, because more than 1,800 people had signed it. I know that many other hon. Members will have received similar petitions as part of USDAW's "Freedom from Fear" campaign.
That campaign calls on the Government to work in partnership with the union, the police, employers and local authorities to help to stop incidents of violence against shop workers and there is a real need for some joined-up thinking. For example, in most cases, it is the police who deal with crime and antisocial behaviour in and around stores, while local councils have a duty to reduce antisocial behaviour through their local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and to act as the enforcement body for much of the health and safety legislation. Employers have a legal duty to identify health and safety risks to staff, and to do what they can to prevent or control such risks, including the risk of violence. This is all fine, but those responsibilities would be more effective tools if those bodies worked together more closely to focus on the specific problem of the violence and abuse that is directed at shop workers. I believe that this raises the question of whether we now need a better and more coherent legislative framework to ensure that this co-operation and partnership actually happens.
Plenty of legislation applies to the risk from violence at work, including the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996. That legislation is good, and the problem of violence and abuse towards shop workers is substantially covered by it. However, there is a problem regarding its implementation.
That problem is recognised by the Health and Safety Commission in its publication "A strategy for workplace health and safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond". This strategy builds on the strength of the commission's relationship with the Department for Work and Pensions and the collective ambition, which 129 I share, to promote opportunity and independence in a healthy and productive work force. On page 6 of the publication, however, the commission states:
We have looked closely at the current division of enforcement responsibility between local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive and their ways of working. There is no lasting logic to the current arrangements. They are complex, confusing and based on boundaries and approaches that suit more the convenience of the regulator than the needs of business or the workforce.That strikes me as a strong argument for change and for doing something. I would argue, however, that it is not just the relationship between local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive that is complex; it is also the relationship with the police retailers and the employees themselves.The figures suggest that much more needs to be done. Between 1995 and 2002, more than 118,000 retail staff were victims of physical abuse, about 250,000 staff were threatened with physical violence, and incidents of verbal abuse were estimated at more than 500,000 for that same period. Employers, unions and the police all agree that the problem is getting worse. Those figures were taken from the report of the British Retail Consortium, and it is recognised that they are probably an underestimate because many incidents are not recorded.
We all know the Co-op, and it reported in its annual crime survey published last September that there had been an alarming rise of 39 per cent in physical assaults against its staff compared with the previous year. The Co-op informs me that, since September 2003, in local Co-op stores in and around Lowestoft in my constituency, there have been at least nine incidents of assault against the staff of Anglia Co-op, often by offenders who have drink or drugs-related problems.
The Government have quite rightly put great emphasis on cutting street crime, and I believe that they have managed to do so. However, one unfortunate consequence of that is that persistent offenders are increasingly targeting shops instead. Many are drug addicts who steal to fund their habit and are prone to aggression and violence if confronted. The Tesco store in Lowestoft town centre, for example, has all too often experienced incidents of violence and verbal abuse, despite Lesley Maddison's hard work to promote USDAW's "Freedom from Fear" campaign. Six months ago a girl detained in the store for theft threatened to bite and scratch the manager, telling him that she had HIV and that if she managed to scratch or bite him she would transfer it to him. During the Christmas period a boy entered the store waving a knife, causing the store to be evacuated. It is now all too common for staff to receive verbal abuse, to be threatened with a weapon—be it a knife or a walking stick—or even to be spat at. My researcher, who worked on this topic for me, was spat on once while working in a video shop as she removed videos from the drop-off box. The culprits then walked into the shop holding bricks and threatening to hit her and the manager.
Such incidents are bad enough for employees themselves, but there are also wider consequences for the community. As we know, a local shop is often a community lifeline, but the single stores and small shopping areas are frequently more vulnerable to violence and abuse than the larger ones. In some cases such stores are having to close, depriving communities of what may be their only service.
130 Another type of shop that is on the front line is the community pharmacy. Last night I was talking to a friend who is a community pharmacist, and learning of the problem with which he and his staff must contend as they deal with numerous drug-taking customers. The real answer, as we know, is to overcome the drug problem and tackle crime at its root, but that is easier said than done, and will take a long time. We must give far more consideration to the welfare of our shop workers, who today bear much too much of the brunt of the problem.
The effects on staff who have suffered violence can of course be devastating, but even when the physical injuries are slight the mental scarring from being involved in or witnessing an incident can result in serious health problems. Post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, can take some time to develop. There are several examples of staff being bitten by suspected shoplifters, or stabbed with syringes when they try to intervene. USDAW has documented them. Sometimes, although the physical injuries are superficial, the uncertainty undergone by the shop worker concerning the risk of infection with hepatitis or HIV, and the need to keep going to regular blood tests and treatment, can be extremely stressful. Even when staff have not directly experienced an incident, they can suffer from ill health purely as a result of the fear of violence and abuse. They may experience nausea or insomnia, for instance.
This, of course, also damages the industry itself. Employees living under the shadow of fear can become demotivated and miss work, particularly certain shifts that might be vulnerable. Days can be lost through sickness absence, and it is on record that some experienced and skilled staff are now leaving the industry. That same stress and anxiety can also have an impact on family life if staff take their fears home with them. Shop workers have reported being increasingly tense and irritable at home, becoming tearful for no apparent reason, short-tempered with family members, and reluctant to go out in public.
So what is being done? Some stores are trying to help themselves, and have introduced uniformed staff after shop workers have complained. Security guards do have a deterrent effect on gangs of young people or persistent shoplifters, but owing to cost considerations there are usually too few to provide permanent cover in all but the largest stores. The attitude and behaviour of local managers is crucial. It is essential for employees to be backed up by their managers, and for managers to be given authority to provide that back-up and confidence when customers are abusive.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 contains a range of new powers and sanctions that the police can use to ban offenders from entering certain shopping centres or shops, or to disperse groups. Another initiative is the safer shopping partnership, which is being promoted by the British Retail Consortium in co-operation with local authorities and local police. I am told that it has succeeded in reducing the incidence of violent retail crime in a number of shopping centres. Habitual shoplifters and people with a record of threatening or abusive behaviour are banned from shops, and photographs are circulated. I understand that some 250 partnerships exist in the UK. I have to say, however, that a scheme of this sort was set up in Lowestoft—I may even have helped to launch it—and has had only limited success.
131 So what more can we do? First, it is important that each of the relevant bodies dealing with the problem fully recognises its own function in combating violence and abuse against shop workers, and attaches real priority to that. There are parts of the country where the police could improve their response to incidents, and that could be a key performance indicator for the police. The criminal injuries compensation scheme could be improved to make it more generous and easier for victims to apply for. That would enable shop workers to feel that their experiences were real and that the effects that they had suffered were worthy of compensation, when injury had occurred.
Many of the crimes occur when young people are asked for identity to prove their age to buy certain goods. I should like to see a proof-of-age card made compulsory, creating a culture in which a young person expects to be asked, knows that they have to be asked and so does not argue and quibble when they are asked. For that reason, and for many others, I fully support the Government's pressing forward with identity cards.
The police and local authorities must work in a more co-ordinated way with local businesses on the use of antisocial behaviour orders to ban persistent offenders from shopping areas and town centres. Although I understand that local authorities have competing claims for resources, I am concerned that often in recent years, enforcement activity on health and safety at work appears to have been squeezed out. Environmental health officers must be able to focus more on the prevention of violence and on providing protection against it, and co-ordinate their work with safety reps and union officials in stores, as well as with management.
Many employers and retailers take the safety and protection of their staff very seriously and work hard to combat the increasingly tough situation that I have described; but not all do so. All too often, I have learned of, or seen with my own eyes, inadequately protected staff left isolated and exposed to unacceptable risk without proper back-up from management, even when staff have complained.
There is a real need for the Government to look seriously at the problem and to see where the legislation and its enforcement are really working, and where they are not. Some of the measures that I have outlined could make a difference, but I return to the central issue: the need for all the relevant bodies to come together in a fully joined-up approach. That is just not happening at the moment. The statement by the Health and Safety Commission that I quoted earlier speaks volumes, and I shall repeat it:
There is no lasting logic to the current arrangements. They are complex, confusing and based on boundaries and approaches that suit more the convenience of the regulator than the needs of business or the workforce.That is why I argue tonight for a review of the legislation to be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive with particular input from local authorities. That would give us a better understanding of how effectively the legislation is working, and of its pitfalls. Furthermore, if specific problems with implementation were found, it would be worth questioning whether 132 those problems were with the legislation itself or with the bodies implementing it. That would enable the Government to assess whether new legislation should be created. The HSE is in the best position to take that task forward, and we look to it to take the lead on such matters.
I should like to acknowledge the help that I received from USDAW in preparing today's debate, and I pay tribute to its "Freedom from Fear" campaign. As part of that campaign, USDAW initiated respect for shop workers day on 17 September last year, and I hope that that becomes a regular, important event.
My key point is that although much of the legislation is in place, greater promotion of the tools that the legislation provides is needed. We need an overall framework, focused on people such as shop workers who come into direct contact with the public, so that the necessary partnerships between the relevant bodies and the businesses actually work in combating these awful crimes against those who serve us. Retail staff in the UK have suffered for long enough, and it is time to create a culture in which abuse and violence against shop workers is deemed wholly unacceptable.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this debate on such an important subject, and in such a timely way. As he pointed out, the scale of violence and abuse to shop workers is a very serious concern and he gave some disturbing examples of such behaviour.
Violence and abusive behaviour of that type does not have to be tolerated, least of all in the workplace. Everyone has the right to go about their work without the fear of physical assault or the intimidation of verbal abuse. Violence in any shape or form has a damaging effect on people's lives, their businesses and their families. At the very least, it can lead to the stress and psychological and emotional trauma to which my hon. Friend referred. At its worst, it can be fatal. That is why many of us—including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who I am pleased to see here and who has been active on the issue—are concerned to ensure that we work with our constituents and organisations such as USDAW to ensure that we take the appropriate action.
Work-related violence also represents a real cost to employers, leading to increased sickness absence, low staff morale and high staff turnover. In turn, these can affect the confidence anti profitability of a business, and may be further compounded by expensive insurance premiums and compensation payments. Employers cannot afford to ignore the risks of violence to staff. Apart from the ethical and financial arguments, the law requires them to consider it.
The Health and Safety Executive encourages employers to manage work-related violence in the same way as any other health and safety issue. To help employers do this, the HSE has published general guidance to help them prevent and manage work-related violence. The HSE has published practical guidance for retailers and their staff on how the problems and causes of violence might be tackled. It sets out an approach that can be adopted as everyday practice.
133 The retail industry is an area where local authorities are responsible for health and safety enforcement and the HSE works closely with local authorities to ensure that key issues are addressed. Meetings also take place between the local authority unit and trades unions. Indeed, at a recent meeting violence at work was one of the issues discussed.
We know from the latest British crime survey that there were just under 850,000 incidents of work-related violence in 2002—03. That is far too many, but it is significantly less than in previous years. That is not a cause for complacency. Work-related violence remains a serious problem and we know that there are some employees who are more likely to experience violence than others, including those who work with or deliver a service to the public—as my hon. Friend pointed out—such as shop workers.
The Government are committed to tackling this problem. In March 2000, the Health and Safety Commission embarked on a challenging three-year programme with the aim of reducing the number of incidents of violence at work by 10 per cent. by the end of 2003. This programme was particularly targeted at sectors that are most at risk, including the retail sector. Under this programme, the HSE has published new guidance to help smaller businesses manage the risk of work-related violence. This includes case studies showing how businesses in different sectors, including the retail sector, have tackled the problem by taking simple and cost-effective steps.
The HSE has published case study guidance showing examples of good practices in preventing and managing violence to lone workers, including shop workers. This is freely available on the HSE's website. It has funded the development of new national occupational standards in managing work-related violence. These standards will provide employers with a sound framework within which to develop detailed policies on work-related violence.
To help sustain and promote this work, the HSE held a joint conference with the TUC in December 2002 to help raise awareness of violence in the workplace and to share good practice across different sectors and businesses. John Hannet, Deputy General Secretary of USDAW, was a principal speaker at this event. He explained how his union is working with employers to address the problem of violence to shop workers through its freedom from fear campaign, to which my hon. Friend referred. I want to take this opportunity to commend USDAW for that campaign.
Doug Russell, also of USDAW, gave a similar presentation at the Health and Safety/Local Authority Enforcement Liaison Committee conference, also in December, to an audience of some 300 local authority officers and elected members.
The Government very much welcome the work that USDAW is doing—in partnership with employers, the public, local authorities, the police and the HSE—to tackle this problem and to promote the message that abusive behaviour towards shop workers is unacceptable. My hon. Friend has done a service this evening by pointing out the importance of that 134 partnership—of making sure that all the elements of the policy of addressing violent and abusive behaviour in the retail sector are carried out across the boundaries of those different agencies.
The Health and Safety Executive is building on the momentum of the commission's earlier programme of work in order to demonstrate its continued commitment to working with key stakeholders and partners in reducing workplace violence still further. Future initiatives to tackle workplace violence will be designed to reflect the key principles of the commission's new policy "Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and Beyond", to which my hon. Friend referred. This strategy is clearly focused on making sensible health and safety a cornerstone of a civilised society. That means managing risks by working in partnership with stakeholders and by supporting the people best placed to make workplaces safer from harm—the staff and managers who work there.
Some of these initiatives will also form part of the Health and Safety Commission's priority programme on work-related stress. We know that violence at work is an important factor in contributing to such stress. As part of the stress priority programme, the HSE is developing standards of good management practice to enable employers and employees to work in partnership to address work-related stress at an organisational level. These standards will provide a yardstick by which organisations can gauge their performance in tackling a range of key stressors. One of these management standards covers work relationships, and will include issues such as work-related violence and bullying.
The future is about getting employers and workers to accept both the business and moral cases for workplace health and safety, and to work together to manage risks. Trade unions are key stakeholders in achieving this aim. I commend USDAW on its work through the campaign, and I commend my hon. Friend on bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
The HSE and local authorities are working towards regional partnerships to maximise combined expertise and local knowledge in order to overcome issues of inconsistency. Local authorities are involved locally in statutory crime and disorder partnerships, working closely with the police and other blue light services. The HSE, working in partnership with local authorities regionally, will be able to work more closely with such arrangements.
I have heard the arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced in this evening's short debate, and the HSE, the police, local authorities and the other partners who have to work together to ensure that we deal with violence and abuse at work—particularly in the retail sector—will read our proceedings carefully. We will look carefully to see whether we should be doing more, in addition to the measures that we are already adopting, to address this issue, and to ensure that shop workers and others can go about their work free from the fear and risk of violence and abuse.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.