“(1) It is an offence for a person to assault, threaten or abuse another person who is a retail worker, and who is engaged, at the time, in retail work.

(2) The offence under section 1 of threatening or abusing a retail worker—

(a) is committed by a person if the person—

(i) behaves in a threatening or abusive manner towards the worker, and

(ii) intends by the behaviour to cause the worker or any other person fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause such fear or alarm.

(b) applies to—

(i) behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done,

(ii) behaviour consisting of—

(A) a single act, or

(B) a course of conduct.

(3) No offence is committed under subsection (1) unless the person who assaults, threatens or abuses knows or ought to know that the other person is a retail worker and is engaged, at the time, in retail work.

(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding £10,000 (or both).

(5) An offence committed under subsection (1) is aggravated if the behaviour constituting the offence occurred because of the enforcement of a statutory age restriction.

(6) Where, in proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it is—

(a) specified in the complaint that the offence is aggravated by reason of the retail worker enforcing a statutory age restriction, and

(b) proved that the offence is so aggravated,

the court must—

(a) state on conviction that the offence is so aggravated,

(b) record the conviction in a way that shows that the offence is so aggravated,

(c) take the aggravation into account in determining the appropriate sentence, and

(d) state—

(i) where the sentence imposed in respect of the offence is different from that which the court would have imposed if the offence were not so aggravated, the extent of and the reasons for that difference, or

(ii) otherwise, the reasons for there being no such difference.

(7) Evidence from a single source is sufficient to establish, for the purposes of this section—

(a) whether a person is a retail worker,

(b) whether the person is engaged, at the time, in retail work,

(c) whether an offence committed under subsection (1) is aggravated because of the enforcement of a statutory age restriction.

(8) In this section—

“retail worker” —

(a) means a person whose usual place of work is retail premises, or whose usual place of work is not retail premises but who does retail work,

(b) includes, in relation to a business that owns or occupies any premises in which the person works, a person who—

(i) is an employee of the business,

(ii) is an owner of the business, or

(iii) works in the premises under arrangements made between the business and another person for the provision of staff,

(c) includes a person who delivers goods from retail premises.

“retail premises” means premises that are used wholly or mainly for the sale or supply of goods, on a retail basis, to members of the public.

“retail work” —

(a) in the case of a person whose usual place of work is retail premises, means any work in those retail premises,

(b) in the case of a person whose usual place of work is not retail premises, means work in connection with—

(i) the sale or supply of goods, on a retail basis, to members of the public, or

(ii) the sale or supply of services (including facilities for gambling) in respect of which a statutory age restriction applies,

(c) in the case of a person who delivers goods from retail premises, means work in connection with the sale or supply of goods, on a retail basis, to members of the public done during the period beginning when the person arrives at a place where delivery of goods is to be effected and ending when the person leaves that place (whether or not goods have been delivered),

(d) is not dependent on a person receiving payment.

“enforcement” , in relation to a statutory age restriction, includes—

(a) seeking information as to a person's age,

(b) considering information as to a person's age, or

(c) refusing to sell or supply goods or services,

for the purposes of complying with the restriction (and “enforcing” is to be construed accordingly),

“statutory age restriction” means a provision in an enactment making it an offence to sell or supply goods or services to a person under an age specified in that or another enactment.”—

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would create a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. It is no secret that I have been pursuing this issue in some form for my entire parliamentary career, so I do not think the Minister will have been surprised to see it on the amendment paper. The new clause builds on the long campaign by the shop workers’ union USDAW—I declare an interest as a member—the Co-operative party, Tesco, the Co-op Group, the British Retail Consortium and many others to create a new law with tougher penalties for those who attack and abuse shop workers. It is a campaign that unites workers and management, and retailers big and small. We have made significant progress in previous legislation by securing an aggravating factor in sentencing for assaulting a shop worker, but a proper offence has yet to be introduced. The new clause would do that.

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The Minister asked a number of times during the evidence sessions why shop workers should be treated as a distinct category. The important factor is that, as well as selling things for themselves or their employer, depending on whether they own the shop or are employed to work there, and wearing their name badge or uniform, they have been asked by us in this place to restrict the sale of dozens of categories of items, including cigarettes, alcohol, knives, acids—you name it. That is a hugely significant act of public service, and the consequences of their not abiding by that request are very significant for them personally and potentially catastrophic for the rest of society.

In that moment, shop workers are put at risk, because every declined sale is a possible point of friction. Actions taken by us have created that flashpoint for violence and abuse, and many of us will have heard the harrowing stories of life-changing injuries that shop workers have suffered simply doing their job. It seems to me proper that if we are going to use legislation to require shop workers to enforce restrictions, then we should be prepared to use it to protect them. We should have their backs in that moment. That is the basic premise.

My hon. Friend referred to the evidence sessions. Paddy Lillis said:

“There are about 1,000 incidents a day, and we think that that is just the tip of the iceberg”.––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2023; c. 110, Q57.]

He went on to encourage retail workers who are not reporting incidents to do so. The Government’s defence against calls to introduce a specific offence has always been, “There’s not enough of it. It’s not significant enough for a specific offence.” Does my hon. Friend agree that if there are 1,000 incidents a day, there is good cause for the new clause?

Yes. We are talking about an epidemic scale, and it behoves us to take action. Too many staff have given up on us or on the police and are just pricing violence and abuse in as part of the job, which they should never have to do, or leaving the industry and going to do something else.

The staggering degree of violence and abuse is now accompanied by shoplifting. The new crime statistics published last week show that shoplifting has increased by just under a third in the last year alone, as criminals run rife in our town centres. That is what our staff are facing every day—that is the level of the onslaught—and it has a knock-on impact on those who do not work in the shops but live in and love their community. Businesses in difficult economic circumstances can go under if hit hard by persistent shoplifting, which has a catastrophic impact on local economies and puts off residents. Similarly, big chains are making judgments on a store-by-store basis about whether to keep their shops open if they cannot protect colleagues or if crime makes them unviable, and a big retailer pulling out of a community has a huge impact on the high street.

The new clause would create a stop point, give the police the tools they need to go after the organised gangs and individuals who perpetrate abuse, and simplify what is currently scattered across the statute book into a consolidated offence, making investigation and, hopefully, charge and conviction easier. It would send a clear signal to perpetrators that they cannot hide in the grey areas.

The eagle-eyed will have noticed that the new clause is a copy of a measure passed in Scotland, introduced by my friend Daniel Johnson MSP, so the language is on a statute book already and could be on ours. While it is early days for that legislation, we heard early signs of its effectiveness in the evidence sessions. The USDAW general secretary Paddy Lillis, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, spoke of an additional 6,000 investigations of retail crime by Police Scotland following the introduction of the new law. Paul Gerrard from the Co-op Group, whose personal leadership in this area has been phenomenal, said cases of violence in Scottish stores are now followed by arrest 60% of the time, whereas the equivalent in England and Wales is in “penny numbers”. Something different is happening in Scotland, and my proposition to the Minister is that this clearer consolidated offence is that difference.

I strongly believe that this is a “when” not an “if” moment. This legislation is here, and we should take this opportunity. We will continue to push this at every stage. If the Government will not do this, we will fight tooth and nail to get the opportunity to do so ourselves.

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the new clause and for his introduction. The Government certainly share the Opposition’s concern. Whereas crime as a whole has been declining over the last 13 years, the last four years and the last year, the past year or two have seen an increase in both shoplifting and assaults on retail workers. That has been seen not only in the UK, but around the world, including in Europe, Australia and the United States of America, and that is of deep concern to us all. I have repeatedly met retailers, including the Co-op, and I met Paddy Lillis, the USDAW general secretary, and some of his members who work in shops, including Tesco and Sainsbury’s stores in various parts of London, at the Home Office just a week or two ago, so we are engaging on this matter.

I will say a word or two about the action the Government are taking and then talk about the specifics of the new clause. Last autumn, working together with policing, we published the retail crime action plan. That contained several important commitments from the police, including a reaffirmation of their commitment always to investigate retail crime, in common with other crime, where there are reasonable lines of inquiry to pursue—not sometimes, not maybe, but always. That includes always retrieving CCTV footage and running it through the facial recognition database we discussed a few weeks ago. Most stores have CCTV and where there is even a partial image of an offender—perhaps it is fuzzy, or there is shade, or they are wearing a hat—it should always be run through the various databases. The algorithm is now very good, and matches can often be obtained even when a visual inspection would suggest that would be difficult. I have seen some extraordinary examples.

We expect police always to do that facial recognition matching. We also expect them always to physically attend a scene where there has been an assault on a retail worker, if attendance is necessary to secure evidence. If it is just CCTV evidence, it can be emailed, but they should attend to secure evidence if they need to. Where store staff, including security staff, have detained an offender, we expect the police to attend as a matter of urgency to pick up that offender.

When the Minister has deliberations with retailers, would he include the charity shop sector and the wholesale industry? They too are experiencing high numbers of thefts.

Yes, I would. In fact, I think both those sectors have been invited to the larger six-monthly meetings of the retail crime steering group. I should have added that my first job in south London was in a Sainsbury’s very close to what is now my constituency —I must have been about 16 or 17—and the first business I ran was a wholesale distribution business whose main warehouse was on the Lichfield Road industrial estate in Tamworth. I recall on one occasion someone trying to drive a JCB through the wall to steal cigarettes and alcohol. That was 20-odd years ago, so I am very apprised of the dangers posed to the wholesale sector as well as the retail sector.

As I was saying, more police attendance is the second element of the retail crime action plan. The third element is targeting prolific and repeat offenders using facial recognition and analysis of data so that we can go after organised criminal gangs. The fourth element is Operation Pegasus, a nationwide project funded partly by about 16 retailers and run by police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne from Sussex. Again, its aim is to identify criminal gangs and go after them specifically.

The police made a lot of commitments in the retail crime action plan, published two or three months ago, and we will have meetings every three months of the retail crime steering group, which consists of leading retailers, the British Retail Consortium and many others, to hold the police to account for delivering the action plan that they have signed up to. I think the next meeting is in a week or two—it is relatively soon. Those are the operational steps being taken. We are working very closely with unions, retailers and representative groups, as I said.

Turning to new clause 41, I have a lot of sympathy for where the shadow Minister is coming from. I understand the desire to strengthen the law in this area, but I will make one or two observations. First, passing laws is the easy bit. The hard bit is creating change on the ground. That applies to a lot of the things we have talked about today, including this issue.

Of course, it is already a criminal offence to assault a retail worker, just as it is an offence to assault anybody. The proposed new offence would replace only common assault—all assault is serious, but that is the lowest level of assault—where the victim is a retail worker. It would not make any difference to or replace other, more serious forms of assault. Those include assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which causes a temporary injury such as a bruise; assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, which causes a lasting injury such as a broken bone; and grievous bodily harm with intent to cause serious injury. The maximum sentences for those other forms of assault are five years for ABH and GBH, and life for GBH with intent. The new clause would not affect those maximum sentences, which are much higher than its proposed maximum.

Is the Minister saying that if a broader new clause covering all those types of assault were brought back on Report, it would be acceptable to the Government?

That is not quite what I was saying. I am going to point out a number of potential weaknesses in the new clause. That is one of them, but it is not the only one. I am just saying that it does not address any of the more serious assaults from ABH upwards. It would not affect probably 100% of the assaults of most concern, and probably 90% of all assaults.

The second issue is equity between retail workers and other public-facing workers. Retailers do very important work. As the shadow Minister rightly said, they do things such as age verification, which we in Parliament asked them to do. They put themselves in harm’s way, and they have been suffering from appalling abuse, which we all want to stop. All of those things are absolutely true.

This new clause, however, targets only retail workers. There are quite a few other workers with an equally strong claim. When it came to the statutory aggravating factor, which I will talk about in a moment, we orientated it towards all public-facing workers—not just retail workers. If we accept new clause 41 as drafted, reasonable questions might arise about teachers, who sometimes suffer assault at school, or bus, tram or tube drivers. What about refuse collectors, local councillors, social workers, and all these other workers who do an important job on behalf of the public, who sadly are often assaulted? They might say, “What about us?” In the previous bit of legislation, which I will refer to in a moment, we directed it towards the inclusion of all public-facing workers, not just retail workers, important though they are of course.

I am sorry for trespassing on the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. When we changed the law in relation to health workers, it was because there was a recognised high incidence of assaults on them. We have the same situation now with shopworkers. We do not have the same situation with teachers, refuse collectors or other public servants.

Other public-facing workers sadly suffer from assault—bus drivers being an obvious example. I will come on to the legislation we introduced. The hon. Member for Stockton North and I were both on the Bill Committee for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. He will recall that, recognising this concern about retail workers and others, we passed a measure that made it a statutory aggravating factor where the victim of any assault—not just common assault—was a public-facing worker. When judges pass sentence and the victim is a public-facing worker—that includes retail workers—they are obliged by primary legislation to consider a longer sentence than they otherwise would. Reflecting the seriousness of this issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, so eloquently talked about, this ensures that there is a longer sentence—the person concerned will go to prison for a longer period of time. That came into force less than two years ago, so we have taken action. It would be reasonable to consider just how that is bedding in before going further, much as I sympathise with the intent behind this new clause.

Mention has been made of the offence in Scotland on which the new clause has been modelled, which I think came into force in 2021. The shadow Minister referenced the fact that there has apparently been some uplift in charges in Scotland as a result. I would be interested to find out—maybe outside of this Committee—how that has been established. Prior to this offence going on to the statute book in Scotland, offences where a retail worker was the victim would have been recorded just as assaults, in common with all other assaults. I do not know how it is possible to strip out the baseline to understand how many retail worker assaults were being prosecuted before the new law compared with afterwards. Before the new law in Scotland, they would all just have been counted as regular assaults. I do not know how those that had a retail worker as a victim could be isolated. Maybe the shadow Minister could write to me or we can discuss it later, because I would be interested to hear how that data is derived.

I know I am not supposed to show props or exhibits, so I will not do so, but I have some data on shoplifting prosecutions in Scotland and England over the last seven or eight years that has been indexed. The Committee may want to know that the graph in Scotland and England basically tracks one for one, including the two years after 2021. Certainly, the prosecution of shoplifting offences, which is different from assaults but gives a sense of police action, does not seem to be any different in Scotland and England over the period concerned. If there is evidence, from USDAW or otherwise, on the effect of that Scottish law change, I would be very interested to see and consider it further.

I also refer the Committee to remarks made by Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and, until about a year ago, the chief constable of Surrey. Committee members will recall that we asked him in an evidence session whether he thought that having a bespoke offence for retail workers would make any difference, bearing in mind that assaulting a retail worker is already a criminal offence. On 12 December, he said:

“It would not make a difference in terms of the investigation and operational response, because clearly that is something”

—“that” being an assault on a retail worker—

“that police would act on anyway…it would not make a difference to the initial policing response to investigate the assault.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2023; c. 10, Q14.]

The police are duty bound to investigate the assault anyway, given that it is a criminal offence.

Taken in the round, Parliament legislated relatively recently to increase the sentences that judges hand down via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. These are already criminal offences, and the proposed new clause applies only to the lowest level of assault, common assault. It does not make any change to the more serious ones—actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, and GBH with intent. The new clause is also directed only at retail workers, potentially neglecting other public-facing workers who deserve the same level of protection such as teachers, bus drivers and so on.

On reviewing the Scottish evidence, it may be that the shadow Minister has some data that I have not seen, and I am very open to looking it at it if he does. I have not yet seen any compelling evidence on the impact of this measure in Scotland. While I sympathise very strongly with the sentiments expressed by the shadow Minister—and I maintain an active interest in this area and an enthusiasm to look at his data—we will not accept the new clause for all those reasons. We want to push operationally on this issue—I have mentioned the retail crime action plan—and we are certainly willing to keep an eye on it. If a case is made that tightening up the law is necessary to address the serious problems in this area, then I would not categorically rule that out in the future. I hope I have set out why I gently and respectfully resist new clause 41 at the moment.

I am grateful to the Minister for a very full answer and the thoughtful statement on the Government’s case is much appreciated. I start by saying that Ministers on a number of occasions, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House—the Home Secretary is very fond of doing it—have talked about reductions in crime and expect, to some degree, garlands for that. The Minister opens his argument here by saying, “Well, actually, this is something that is happening around the world and we are merely tracking that”, when he knows that those crime reductions, particularly around vehicle crime, map very accurately with our statistical neighbours. There is a danger of cakeism from the Government in saying that, when crime falls, it is because of the wit and genius of Ministers, and when crime increases, saying “Well, it is happening to all of us, isn’t it?” I did not want to let that go unremarked.

On the retail crime action plan and the steering group, we want those to work. We think that those are important interventions and we are all committed to seeing that happen. I know that, whether it is retailers or police, there is lots of energy in this space, and that is very welcome. I still fear that some of it is perhaps a triumph of hope over experience. On the reasonable lines of inquiry, we will again see. That is often cited by Ministers as a major plank in their approach, but I am still willing to take a wager that there is going to be a heavy degree of triage in some of that. The system suddenly being able to do that, having not been able to do that, implies a change of operating model, which has been available at short notice.

First, I put on the record my thanks to Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman of North Wales police, who leads for the NPCC in this area and was instrumental in publishing the retail crime action plan. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the deliverability of all reasonable lines of inquiry, the approach was based on that taken by Chief Constable Stephen Watson in Greater Manchester, starting about a year and a half ago—perhaps two years now. You might be familiar with this, Sir Graham, but it worked successfully in Greater Manchester, to the point that arrests went up 44% year on year, and I think two magistrates courts had to be reopened, because of the volume of arrests. We saw that working under Chief Constable Watson’s leadership, and we want to replicate the success across England and Wales.

I am grateful for that, and we want to see that success. I add my congratulations to Chief Constable Watson, as well as to—for a little balance—the Mayor of Greater Manchester and to the Deputy Mayor, our former colleague Kate Green. However, we will see, because a lot of the action plan and the Government’s other plans are predicated on that work, but the results remain to be seen.

Facial recognition is a good tool in the toolkit. We certainly want detection and to break up organised elements, but again that is a retrospective tool, and it is only part of the armoury. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East made an important point that I should have made about the wholesale sector. This is about retail workers in the retail setting, but there is a wider picture, as the Minister said, citing the shocking example in his own experience. This is something that is happening in the supply chain, too: highly organised criminals are taking their in-store experience to go further up the supply chain. That behoves us to take action.

On the specific concerns about the new clause, if the Minister feels that it does not go far enough on assault or cover enough assaults, we are happy to shake hands now on an expanded definition. We would have no problem with that at all. On equity with other industries, we all say that no one should go to work in fear, or in actual fact, of being subject to violence or abuse. The reason why this case is different is that we have put extra obligations on individuals—an obligation with severe consequences: “If not followed, you will lose your job”—so there is some extra responsibility on us.

Do we not put obligations on, for example, bus drivers to collect fares? That is just one example.

That does not seem to be the same. Universally, passengers go on to a bus and expect to pay a fare; there is no sense of a growing picture of violence related to bus drivers asking for money from their customers. To be honest, going beyond that case, the point about our special responsibility in this place is that the volume alone behoves us to act. If I am wrong, I will take a different slant, but I do not believe that bus drivers or any of the other industries mentioned—teachers, refuse collectors, local authority councillors—face violence to this degree, with 1,000 incidents a day; if that starts to become the picture in those industries, I will be at the front of the queue to talk about the protections such workers might need. At the moment, however, a fire is burning in this sector, and it is having dreadful consequences for individuals and for the collective, which is why I believe that the change I have suggested is necessary.

On Scotland and the evidence, I was quoting what we had heard in the evidence sessions from Paddy and Paul. The Minister made a good point about the ability to separate assault, but Paul was talking in-store, so assaults that happened in stores would, by definition, be against retail workers. Again, that was all there in their evidence.

I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. This is a point of difference between us and the Government. The Minister made a cogent case, as always. It sounded a lot like the arguments that we had before we got the aggravated offence—the Government always say no until they say yes, in my experience—so I will give them a chance to say yes today, because I will press the new clause to a Division; then we will keep doing that until eventually—I have no doubt whatever we will—we form one mind on this issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.