 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 7, 9, 2, 4, in the name of Daniel Johnson on respect for shop workers week, 13 to 19 November. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I will ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now, I call on Daniel Johnson to open the debate. Mr Johnson, please. I should begin by referring members to my register of interests. I am a director of an O-shareholder of a company with retail interests in the city centre of Edinburgh, and I am also a member of Asdor, the shop workers union. Indeed, that is not so much a declaration of interest as probably a statement of commitment or even did a call to arms, because I think that retail is a hugely important industry and I make no apologies for being an advocate for it. It is the largest private sector employer in Scotland. It is worth about 10 per cent of the economy. I would go as far as saying that I think that it is the very interface of the economy. It is where people take their hard-earned pounds and exchange them and that money flows round the economy again. All too often, the retail industry gets dismissed as being an industry of low pay and low skill. I do not think that that does the industry justice at all, because for me retail is about work and that work is about people. It is not just about selling stuff, it is about people providing goods and services, providing that point of contact. More importantly, retail work is very often people's first job. I am sure that I am not the only person who was introduced to the world of work by working in retail and increasingly it is also becoming a job that people take in retirement. It is people's first job and last job. Above all else, I think that one of the things that retail industry does is that it provides opportunity. It is one of the last remaining industries where you can genuinely start on the shop floor and work your way to the top. For all those positives, there are also some serious issues that concern the world of retail. I know from personal experience that confronting people is stressful. One of the most difficult things when I was a shopkeeper was having to eject people from my shop that we suspected of shoplifting. There was that moment when my heart was pounding, I was going to say, I was sure of what the person would do, what they would say to me, what they might do to me when I asked them to leave. Nothing ever did happen, but I always felt that it was important that I took that on to protect my staff. For too many people working in retailing, that is exactly the sort of situation that results in abuse and violence. I saw the shop workers union estimate that around half of shop workers regularly receive verbal abuse. Around 6,000 retail workers are abused on a weekly basis, and 200 are assaulted every day across the UK. Indeed, those are numbers backed up by employers organisations, too. The Scottish Grocer's Federation estimating that around a third of its convenience store staff are regularly suffering from violence. Indeed, the British retail consortium estimates that retail crime has increased by 40 per cent in the last year. That has real human impacts. Those are situations that lead to stress for the workers involved, leading to depression, mental health issues and, for some people, them being unable to work. There is a fundamental of the nature of retail work. Shop workers are exposed to the public. They have no option but to keep putting themselves in that same position where they are exposed to risk. Whereas you or I who might encounter an incident walking down the street or the park, you could avoid that situation, avoid that place. However, if it is where your place of work is, you have but no option but to keep going back to where you have experienced those issues and those incidents. That is why Asdawn's respect week and their freedom from fear campaign is so important. It also allows us to show the consensus between trade unions and industry, but fundamentally it is about that real human cost, that violence and abuse in the retail environment has. Ultimately, violence and abuse at work is unacceptable. It does not matter where you work and what context, whether you are working in an office or in the shop, it should never be just part of the job. What needs to happen? First of all, we need a change in culture. That is part of a pattern where all too often people see that denial of sale, denial of service is something that you can respond with abuse, that someone who is wearing a work uniform, a name badge, is no longer a human being but someone who can direct your anger and rage. We have to call an end to that behaviour. We must also call on retailers to play their part. There can be zero tolerance to those incidents and the behaviour in the working environment. They must have adequate security and investment in protection. They must afford staff the training that they need in order to deal with those situations. I have to say that most retailers take those duties seriously, but we must also call on the police and the Procurator Fiscal to make sure that those crimes are treated as a priority and that they result in prosecution. One of the other startling statistics that Azdor has put forward is that 32 per cent of shop workers suffering from abuse and from violence are simply not reporting it. Those incidents have become normalised, just part of what they have to deal with. That comes to us, the Parliament. We have to challenge whether the law is working, whether it is protecting retail workers from those unacceptable incidents. That is why I am very pleased that, in the coming weeks, I will be bringing forward a consultation to propose a new bill. It is very clear to me that there is a growing problem, that this is a situation and that those incidents are escalating. Therefore, the law and the way in which it is enforced is simply not working for too many people working in retail. My bill will seek to consult on how we can provide adequate legal protection, making sure that retail workers do not have to suffer from that violence, making it very clear that those things are unacceptable and, in fact, they are unlawful. Part of that is also looking at why those incidents occur, the trigger points, the things that cause those situations to arise. Part of that is around the legal obligations that shop workers have to carry out. Challenge 25 is the obligation of individual workers, not their employers, to carry out. It is the individual worker who is required to uphold proof of identification and proof of age, and they are an individual who are prosecuted if they fail to do so. What we are asking people to do is to uphold the law in such a way that very often causes the conflict and leads to the situations that cause abuse and violence, and they are legally obliged to do that. My bill will seek to provide that very clear line, so that it would be unlawful to impeach someone upholding the Challenge 25 principle, therefore breaking that chain of events and providing a very clear and early threshold at which a crime has been committed. I would ask all members, taking part in this debate today, to take the issues of violence against retail workers and abuse of retail workers seriously. I would call them to look at my consultation and ask for their support and input into that, but above all else, to support us-dos campaign, freedom for fear campaign and respect week, which is coming up next week. I thank Mr Johnson for the opportunity to discuss the subject tonight. He has referred to the bill that he proposes to bring forward. A member's debate is often a useful way of introducing the subject of a prospective member's bill to Parliament and ramping up the discussion of it. I shall look with interest at the proposals that Mr Johnson seeks to bring forward. I certainly support the principles that he has described. I do not yet know whether I will ultimately be able to support the detailed implementation, but that kind of noises off. The important thing that is at the centrality of this particular debate is those who are in the front line of retail, those who are meeting the public in all its diverse forms, from the regular old man going to the convenience shop in the corner who builds a personal relationship with the shop staff at one end of the spectrum. However, this morning, as I travelled by train here in the metro, unfortunately, there is a story here of a shop worker who was attacked on Sunday in East Ayrshire, whose paper reports are now critically ill in hospital. That illustrates the kind of problem that Daniel Johnson asks us to engage with today. Usdaw is making the more general point on behalf of all retail workers. It, in the most stark way, illustrates the nature of the problem. It is too common, and it has to be dealt with. We will assess whether legal protections of the nature that are proposed are going to help. That shop worker is an easy thing and a proper thing that we should all support. Without retail, we would be impoverished in many, many ways. As one of our biggest industries, it is important, but it is a very personal industry that delivers to us. Too often, the police are called to incidents that happen in shops, particularly in relatively small shops. In larger shops, it is perhaps easier for those who are of ill intent to be observed and they know it. It is the little corner shop that is open at 10 o'clock at night, the shop that is open at 6 o'clock in the morning that is the one that is most commonly in the front line. Usdaw form an important backstop to support people who have been subjected to unacceptable behaviour and who deserve our support for what they do. It is not part of the job spec of someone standing behind a counter that they take whatever comes in their direction. They should have the respect from all those who visit the shops. Good citizens should look out for shop workers and should be part of protecting them from those who are not showing the right attitude to shop workers. I certainly hope that the person who is attacked, as the report says, in East Asia recovers and is able to resume her work if she wishes to do so. I would say that there are many parts of society where people face the public in all its multi-various forms. Shop workers are a very important part of it on another occasion. We might also think about others who have to engage with the public in sometimes quite difficult circumstances. I am happy to support the motion in the terms that it has laid before us. I am very grateful for the opportunity to deliver a speech this evening, and I pray that Tributon can congratulate Daniel Johnson on bringing the members' business tonight to the chamber. Retail is the lifeblood of our economy of giving opportunity and service to individuals and organisations across our economy. As we already hear, next week, the union of shop distributives and allied workers launches its annual respect for shop workers. This week, the theme will be to keep your cool, something that we should all consider in any job that we are participating in. On-going research continues to reveal that every minute of the working day another shop worker is verbally abused, threatened with violence or physically attacked. That cannot continue, and we must do all that we can to stamp out that vile behaviour. The retail crime survey published in February of this year showed that staff continued to be abused, and around a 40 per cent increase had been indicated since 1516. The catalyst of many of those can easily be pointed to alcohol sales. I think that there is an element of that, but that is not all. Identifying individuals who have a wish to purchase alcohol can sometimes cause some difficulty, and we have the 25 discretion that shop workers and managers have to deal with. However, in my lengthy retail experience, abuse of behaviour has merely attributed to it. It is not just the grocery or the sales or the off-trade that has caused the problem. It is any individual who faces the public and faces customers that can be abused and continues to be abused. We have to think of the dramatisation consumer programmes that sometimes give us the wrong impression by showing customers that airports or motor traders or in high streets are shouting and abusing individuals on camera. In the main, the programmes are there to try to educate, but at times they give the wrong impression that shop workers can be easy to beat and individuals can have the opportunity. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. Many employers also exploit individuals who work in shops, and that has to be considered. Some business owners often have working-length hours and ensuring that people do not have the cover and breaks they require. Because of the working situation that we find ourselves in, some individuals feel that they are unable to stand up and challenge that from time to time, because they may find themselves being dismissed or replaced. That is also not acceptable in our current situation. After finishing university, I had the opportunity to work through the ranks in retail, having been a shop worker who then became a management trainee, who then moved on to a store manager and then having my own shop myself. I have been in different elements of that sector, and I believe that it is vitally important that we examine all that we do to ensure that customers and staff are given a good opportunity to develop their skills. It is also very important that we understand that some shop proprietors think that the best way to justify individuals is to let them work on the shop floor and witness what happens, and allow that to take place because they see that as some sort of experience. I also find that difficult to assimilate, because that is very wrong. As I have indicated, I successfully run my own retail business, and I know too well that getting the best from staff and customers alike can only be possible by employing the highest level of courtesy, respect and transparency at all times. Treat people as you wish to be treated yourself was always my motto, and I think that that is very important. In conclusion, some do not find it quite so easy to do both, but it is very important that, if individuals feel that they are abused or compromised, they stand up to that. The annual campaign gives us the opportunity tonight in this chamber to highlight the successes that have taken place and to highlight the worries and concerns that individuals face. We in this Parliament must ensure that we stand up and protect our workers. The laws that we pass must do that and inform them to ensure that we are treating them with the respected reserve. Support, respect and tolerance must be our watchwords, and we should do all that we can to protect, assist and ensure that any worker, regardless of their sector, is treated with dignity and respect. I am a proud member of Azdor, the shop workers union. I thank my colleague Daniel Johnson for bringing this member's debate to the chamber and paying tribute to Azdor for their continued campaigning for shop workers rights, although I have to say that I am disappointed that there is still a need for this type of debate in Scotland today. The motion before us today recognises Azdor's freedom from fear campaign and, specifically, respect for shop workers week, which begins on Monday. I am sure that all members across the chamber will agree that the campaign is important, because, after all, it affects shop workers that we meet in our high streets, our supermarkets, people who provide a service to other constituents as well. With the retail crime survey showing that shop workers are facing increasing levels of violence, it is a campaign that all members should get behind and support. Freedom from fear seeks to prevent violence, threats and abuse against workers. Abuse should not be part of a shop worker's job. They should not have to go to work and face the possibility of being threatened. However, for too many shop workers, abuse is part of their everyday working life. They face regular threats and abusive behaviour from customers, and it is simply not good enough. Abuse should not be any part of their job. Let us remember that as we approach Black Friday and the busy Christmas shopping period. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for giving way. I recognise the work that Daniel Johnson is doing on the issue. Does she recognise that some shop workers face additional fear and alarm because of the late nights that they have to work, often without the public transport to get home, often on buses and other forms of transport that are faced with people who are perhaps drunk or out of order? That is part of the freedom from fear campaign as well. I do absolutely recognise that. It is not just the abuse that takes place in a shop, but it is the abuse that is in the wider community, and we need to challenge that culture, so Kezia Dugdale is absolutely right to raise it. However, as a result of Osdor's campaign, many employers have reviewed security measures in and around the shops and carried out staff training. That is certainly a very welcome step forward, but the campaign requires more than can be done by trade unions alone. Exactly, Kezia Dugdale's point, because the campaign must be about issues about neighbourhood policing, underage sales and additional legal protection for workers. Tackling those issues requires political intervention. I am pleased to say that previous UK Labour Government and, indeed, this Scottish Government have done a great deal towards tackling this type of behaviour, both here and across the UK. However, we need to do more. We have extra police, not all of them are on our streets. We have seen a reduction in crime overall, but abuse of shop workers has increased, according to the Scottish Retail Crime Survey, by a staggering 40 per cent. I am very proud that successive Labour politicians Hugh Henry, Daniel Johnson, have tried to make the workplace safer. When Hugh Henry introduced the protection of workers Scotland bill, he received support from major supermarket chains such as the co-op, Morrison's and Asda. They called on the Parliament to take action to protect their employees, so clearly, because that did not progress, the current law still is not strong enough. The Retail Crime Survey shows that one of the major trigger points for abuse or violence against staff is alcohol sales. In fact, 41 per cent of shop staff experience abuse at least once per week when asking for proof of age, and that is simply not acceptable. Shop workers should not be threatened or abused for simply adhering to the law. Challenge 25 imposes a duty on retail workers to ask for proof of age for anyone who looks under 25 when purchasing items that require a customer to be over 18. It is a long time, Presiding Officer, that we have certainly had our proof of age required, but I look forward to that happening in future. Daniel Johnson's bill would make it illegal to obstruct or hinder a retail worker when they are carrying out their legal duties. Those are legal duties that we, as politicians, have placed on workers, so it is up to us to protect them from that threatening behaviour when implementing the law. I urge all members to get involved in Asdawn's freedom from fear campaign in their local shops and supermarkets, in their local communities and, above all, support Daniel Johnson's bill to give shop workers the protection at work that they deserve. Thank you. I am glad that you alluded to yourself in that age-specific comment. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston, followed by Neil Findlay. Mr Halcro Johnston, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I congratulate Daniel Johnson for bringing forward this debate. It is important with Black Friday and Christmas fast approaching and a timely issue to discuss. It is regrettable that, sometimes and too often, shop workers join other front-line staff in not being afforded the respect that everyone deserves while seeking to make a living, provide a service and contribute to society. We have seen that only the last few days with the bonfire night issues that many of our emergency services have faced. Most shop workers work long hours, often not for the highest of wages and, for many young people, it is their first taste of the jobs market. Yet, on occasion, they have to deal with difficult, sometimes abusive customers and even threats of violence. In my own region, the Highlands and Islands, we see a greater number of smaller and independent businesses. Shop workers in many of those businesses must not only act as customer service, but also as a security guard, doorkeeper, complaints representative, as well as organising much of the backroom activities of the business. In recognising the most overt problems confronting shop workers, we should also consider some of the deeper issues. Workplace stress and the physical side of the job come to mind, but in some cases inadequate training and skills development continues to constrain staff. We place additional expectations on shop workers. Watching for shop lifters, the responsibility of checking dates of birth for age-related purchases, but often the additional responses do not come with additional benefits. Instead, sometimes they create disadvantages—situations that can be a catalyst for a confrontational situation and often a role that they are thrust into without sufficient training. We may frequently use the term difficult customer. Many of us in this chamber may indeed have one time or another fitted that description, but just how often have we stopped to think about the person that we are being difficult with? A person who may have their own problems, health relationships and money, yet they are expected to stand and accept everything, not just for that one difficult customer, but possibly for many day-in, day-out. Why should shop workers and other service economy workers put up with this? Sarcasm, rudeness and inappropriate comments? Some people will never be happy, but who would not dream of being so rude to workers in other sectors? Often the lack of respect can be aimed at those. Both workers and owners in small enterprises such as businesses that are open all hours providing a vital community service. I daresay a particular obnoxious customer has been told not to come back by the owner of one business, but the vast majority of businesses' workers do not have that luxury and have to bite their tongue and suffer in silence, often in the belief in the maxim that the customer is always right. Employers are slowly changing. I see more and more signs indicating abuse of staff in any form will not be tolerated, but we need more than signs. There remains far too many situations that staff feel that it is a waste of time complaining about a customer's treatment, as an employer may believe that it was a staff member's attitude that caused the customer reaction. We all know the value of well-trained, motivated staff, but many employers need to do more to give support to their staff, not only because it is the right thing to do, but it is also the economically sensible thing to do. Staff feeling that they are valued and who have the support of their employers in dealing with their workplace needs, freedom from abuse will certainly repay that support. I congratulate Daniel Johnson for bringing forward this debate. Thank you, Mr Halcro Johnston. I now call Neil Findlay, last speaker in the open debate. Mr Findlay, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing us a very important debate to the chamber today. I also thank the trade union, USDOF, for its dogged campaigning on the issue. I also thank other trade unions such as United Nations, UNISON and GMB, and the rail unions for all the work that they have done highlighting the issue of violence, abuse, intimidation and threats against shop staff, delivery staff, transport workers, banking and finance workers, and all the other workers who day-in, day-out serve us in shops, public counters, buses, trains, planes and other places where business and business transactions take place. My sister works as a stewardess with British Airways, and I regularly hear stories of how customers of the airline deal with staff, and it is absolutely horrifying what sometimes they have to go through. Retail is, of course, a big employer in my region, and it is an area of work that is often a gateway into the world of work, particularly for young people who can all too often be on zero hours or very low hours contracts that are subject to exploitative workplace practices, and in living wage week are often on very low pay. Increasingly, many of them are put in dangerous situations, whether that be in fast food outlets, late at night, bookie shops or delivery drivers, bar workers or corner shops. Those types of places leave people really vulnerable, and small local shops are particularly vulnerable. My own local shopkeeper, a friend of mine, Mr Acbar Alley, became a YouTube sensation two years ago, fighting off a knife-wielding man who tried to steal his till. He fought him off with a plastic chair. While Mr Alley totally against his character came to national prominence in the media, he could easily have ended up dead a victim of knife crime. No worker, whether they be a police officer, a firefighter, a prisoner officer, a fast food worker, a delivery driver, working at a call centre or the local corner shop, should be expected to go out to work and face violence, abuse, intimidation or attack. No worker irrespective of their job should expect that. That is the reason why we have to continue campaigning, like we are doing today. As I say, I thank Daniel Johnson and Usdorff for bringing again the freedom of fear campaign to the Parliament. I urge all the trade unions to continue their campaign on these very important issues. However, the only satisfaction that we have is that we do not have to bring the debate every single year to Parliament, because that is when we will know that we have made some progress on the issue. Thank you, Mr Finlay. I call on Jamie Hepburn to close the debate for the Government. Minister, seven minutes are there abouts, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I join with others in thanking Daniel Johnson for bringing this debate to Parliament. I suppose that I would also like to join. I had not seen the article that Stuart Stevenson highlighted in today's metro newspaper, but I am sure that we would all join him in wishing the person that he highlighted in the article the very best. I agree with the sentiments that everyone has expressed in this debate, Presiding Officer, that it is important that we mark respect for shop workers. We all have constituents who work in this sector. That week takes place next week, and as Mr Finlay pointed out, this week is living wage. It is important that we reflect on that perhaps only in passing in the context of the debate. A fundamental part of respecting our shop workers is ensuring that they are adequately remunerated for work a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. In that regard, I was very delighted to visit a shop a while ago. An employer that I know, Mr Johnson, is well aware of, to see Paper Tiger, who is one of the 1,000 accredited living wage employers that we have across the country. Neil Findlay? Thank you very much. I wrote to all the major employers at the Livingston shopping centre in the run-up to the living wage week asking to encourage them to pay the living wage. I was very pleased to see just yesterday that, as that and Marston Spencer's were the first ones who wrote back to me confirming that they do indeed pay the living wage, which I think we would all welcome. What surprised me was that both of them said that they are not seeking accreditation. That was a disappointment. I wonder whether the minister has had discussions with both companies or whether he could shed some light on why companies that pay their living wage do not want to be accredited as payment. I can't comment specifically on why they might be motivated by not wanting to pay the living wage. What I can say in terms of the Scottish living wage accreditation initiative is that they would not be eligible to be accredited in terms of the living wage foundation that has been set out, because it has to be, in the case of paper tiger for example, a Scottish-specific employer. I do not want to stay too far from the terms of my knowledge of what the UK-wide initiative would be. I think that they would have to seek accreditation directly with the living wage foundation in London. I am unclear why Mr Findlay is concerned by my answer. I am making, as I agree with him, absolutely that it is incumbent on all of us in that place to encourage people to seek living wage accreditation, be that through the Scottish living wage initiative, or indeed the UK initiative. Of course, I give way to Mr Findlay again. Mr Findlay. I am not raising any contention with what you were saying. What I am saying is that it appears that they are not seeking accreditation at all from anyone. I wonder if there are any discussions that the Scottish Government could have with such big employers to encourage them to get accredited. Mr Findlay. I will be clear. I will always be very willing to engage in either my ministerial capacity or my capacity as an accredited living wage employer in my roles as a member of the Scottish Parliament to engage in dialogue and discussion with an employer of any size, be they eligible for accreditation through the Scottish specific scheme or the UK-wide scheme. I fear that I have probably strayed a little far from the terms of the debate. It was an important intervention. In fairness, Mr Johnson, I would like you to raise the issues that he has raised. I would like to as well, but I was trying to place in the context that an important part of respect for shop workers is ensuring that they are properly paid. We have rightly heard that violence against shop workers is never acceptable. We should be sending out the strongest possible signal from this place that as a society we will not tolerate such behaviour. That is why it is important that we have this debate. Our police courts and prosecutors already have a range of extensive powers to protect workers to deter individuals from carrying out or perpetrating any criminal behaviour against anyone who is working in the retail sector. For one, we all have this protection on the common law of assault, which provides legal protection to all in our society as they go about their daily lives, including in the workplace. What was a telling point, and I wonder whether that is reflected in the seeming disconnect between them, because we know that the official figures in terms of including the retail sector, the long-term trend, have been a downward trajectory in recorded crime. However, I recognise that, in the survey that Mr Johnson has outlined, which is a UK-wide survey and, indeed, the Scottish Grocer's Federation—I think that Ms Bailey said the retail crime survey, but I think that she meant the Grocer's Federation, which is a Scottish-specific, similar findings, which are, indeed, very concerning. I wonder whether there is a bit of a disconnect there, because we see the problem that Mr Johnson has rightly identified, that a number of those who have crimes perpetrated against them are reluctant to report them. Again, it is very important that we send out a message here that anyone who ever has a crime perpetrated against them, including in the workplace, should report that to the police for investigation, and ultimately, we hope, for prosecution. Daniel Johnson makes a very fair point. There is clearly something that we need to investigate there—a disconnect between reported, recorded crime and the experience to report through other surveys. However, he will also know that the Scottish Government will not stop recording retail crime figures, which are specifically separate to other crime back in 2008. Will he consider reinstating those statistics? That is a useful intervention. That is something that we are, in fact, doing. Questions are being included in the Scottish Crime and Justice survey. They have been included since 2016-17 to provide updated statistics on the subject. Those results for 2016-17 will be published early next year. I agree that it is important that we ask for that type of information, so that is why we are doing it, which I hope reassures Mr Johnson in that regard. On the specific issue of challenge 25 that was raised, I do not think that I detected any sense from anyone that the challenge 25 is in of itself the wrong thing to do. I think that we all agree that it is an effective mechanism by which we can tackle underage drinking, particularly because we know that a lot of violence is not all violence. Mr Stewart was quite right to place that in the record, but a significant proportion of violence is caused by drink-fuelled behaviour. It is an effective mechanism and it is right that we have that in law. The first thing that I would point out is that we should have the legal framework in place already. No-one should be impeded about going their legal responsibilities in any regard by any individual, including in relation to that particular initiative. We do have the mechanisms in place already. That said, I am interested to see—I am not interested to learn as such, because we had already had it flagged by Mr Johnson that intended to bring forward a member's bill. We will look at that in close detail. I think that the request that we, as a Government, can do more is one that is well-made. We will always be willing to do more. We will need to assess the efficacy of the proposition. I suppose that the point that I would make is that our perspective is that the legal framework is already in place. However, if there is more that can be done in relation to the law, we will look at that as we go forward. Let me close, Presiding Officer, by saying that respect for shopkeepers in terms of the context of this particular debate is of the utmost importance to us. No individual in Scottish society should have to face abuse or violence in any context, least of all in the workplace. We will always be willing to do what we can to respond to such. We should send out a clearest possible, the strongest message, not just from the Government collectively, as a Parliament that Scotland will not tolerate such behaviour. I close this meeting of Parliament.