Westminster Hall adjournment debate on attacks in the workplace

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to UK parliament on Tue 1st Mar 2005

Westminster Hall adjournment debate on attacks in the workplace

01.03.2005

Malcolm Bruce: Although attacks in the workplace are a problem in both the public and the private sectors, they are a particular problem for people whose primary job is to interface with the public.

The statistics for the total number of assaults in the workplace are appalling—we are talking about some 800,000 plus assaults. As the Minister will tell us, that figure is lower than previous figures. Nevertheless, 800,000 plus people a year facing assaults at work is unacceptable, even if a relatively small percentage of people have suffered assaults.

It always enriches a debate when hon. Members can cite personal experience. I am glad to say that I do not have any personal experience to bring to the debate, but I was moved by the experiences of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), which make one wonder why people go into nursing if they have to face such treatment.

Yet we know why people go into nursing: it is because they care, and they want to serve the community and give something back. They want to do that job. It is a huge and appalling irony that people whose prime work function and objective is to look after people who are mentally or physically sick face such aggression when they are trying to help others. That is simply unacceptable.

It can make one angry, when we are fighting a hard battle for health service funding and resources, that so many resources are used to deal with self-inflicted wounds brought about by drunkenness and aggravation, rather than being used to deal with genuine illness or accident, which is what the service is there for. We cannot, however, refuse to treat people or to take people in because they are drunk, although we must address the reasons why the problem arises.

The Scottish Parliament is struggling to some extent with the proposed measure for dealing with violence in the workplace, particularly with respect to public sector workers.

The figures show that 67.9 per cent. of occupational injuries in the national health service in Scotland are the result of violence and aggression. That is a pretty appalling statistic. The figure for general practices and surgeries is 54.4 per cent., and among nurses and midwives it is 75.3 per cent.

There is clearly a serious problem when the biggest risk of injury to people working in the health service is from violent assault by a patient rather than from an accident at work. That must clearly be tackled.

I want to make a point that is, perhaps, philosophical, and a related practical point. I am not against exploring the possibility of a law. If the Scottish Parliament is pursuing that, I am interested, but it is interesting that it is encountering difficulty in formulating it correctly. However, we should not reach for the idea that we must pass a law and that will solve the problem. There is a cultural problem to be tackled.

Assault is a criminal offence in any circumstances, so the law exists. People know that it is a criminal offence, but they still perpetrate assaults; that may be because they are drunk, angry, out of control and not thinking; it may be because they think that they will get away with it; or it may be because they are in some other way not engaged. I do not say that there is not a case for a law to protect public sector workers in particular, but it would be wrong to think that we could just pass a law and feel comforted, or even to think that passing a law would materially change the figures. We must change a society in which people feel that it is all right to behave in the way in question.

Part of the process of conveying to people that such behaviour is unacceptable is to make it known that serious penalties exist and that courts take a serious view of the offences and will act accordingly. I appreciate how frustrating it is when that does not happen. The point takes us towards a wider debate: it concerns the general view, which is often uttered although it may or may not be true, that too many of the wrong people are in prison, and too many of the wrong people are outside it.

To pick up the point about drinking and violence, which is a factor in the workplace too, I wonder whether, as part of the education programme, we might encourage publicans and landlords, and certainly those who have had problems with drunks coming out of their premises, to spend a night in a casualty department. They could see the consequences of serving people who are under age or beyond the point where they have drunk too much, and then letting them out on to the street. We require publicans and landlords to accept responsibility for not fuelling people with drink and then letting them out into situations in which they can cause problems.

I have strayed slightly wide of the debate. We are talking about violence in the workplace and I should like, briefly and finally, to touch on the connection that there can be between a climate of bullying and violence. Bullying is not violence, but it can lead to a climate of violence. An employer who uses bullying-style tactics can create an environment in which violence is likely to occur, not necessarily between employer and employee but among frustrated employees.

We have to recognise that bullying is an issue in the workplace. Clearly, responsible employers will take the view that they should be aware of behaviour that might lead to violence in their workplace, and be prepared to act on it.

I totally accept that, although not all workplaces are unionised and not all people are members of trade unions, that is the sort of issue with which the trade union movement has a long and reputable history of engagement.

Their approach is to say, "We want employers to understand our problems and to address them, but we will accept responsibility also for engaging with our members to ensure that they understand their responsibilities." There are two issues: violence between the public and people in their workplace, and violence between employees. Both are serious.

I hope that all of us believe effective, efficient, consumer-friendly, compassionate public services are an essential facet of a civilised society and central to the political debate. We have been talking for years about resources for health and education—smaller classes, more teachers, more doctors and more nurses—so that we can have a better ratio between the public and those who serve them. All that is designed to create a better interface and, one hopes, might have contributed a little to the reduction in the number of violent incidents. Nevertheless, if we want to recruit people to be nurses, teachers, doctors and social workers—to serve society—we have an obligation to protect them from violence in the workplace.

That is partly because it is right—people should not be subjected to violence, and we should do all we can to lower the incidence—and partly for the practical reason that if we cannot do it and people feel that by taking up those professions they will put themselves in situations in which they might suffer, we will not get people to do the jobs.