Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I declare an interest as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 55 years. In the interests of time, I should say that assaulting a retail worker is an offence in the Bill. Shop theft is something that the Government do not tolerate. In the Bill we are changing the law on recognition of shop theft. When someone witnesses or is subject to a crime, they should contact the police as soon as possible. I pay tribute to those workforce members who attempt to prevent shop theft through their actions. However, Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does provide for a power of citizen’s arrest, which permits individuals to arrest someone who is committing, or whom they reasonably suspect to be committing, an indictable offence. Furthermore, Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that: “A person may use such force as is reasonable … in the prevention of crime, or in … assisting in the … arrest of offenders or suspected offenders”. It is right for a court to decide what constitutes reasonable force, which will depend on an individual case. The noble Lord has placed on record his concern about supermarkets, retailers and other companies adopting non-confrontational policies when dealing with suspected shop thieves. It is for companies to set their own policies to ensure that they keep their staff safe. Companies still have a duty of care over staff. But the balance to that is that if a company dismisses an employee, such as in the case that the noble Lord mentioned, such a dismissal will be considered fair only if it is seen to be fair to dismiss the employee in all the circumstances of the action that they took and if a fair process has been followed. I want to balance the right of employment with the right for a company to set a safeguarding principle against potential actions that staff may take in response to shop theft or other committed criminality. Whether an act of physical violence could be relied upon as an act of gross misconduct allowing for dismissal without notice, or as a matter of ordinary misconduct, will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. It is important for employers to retain the freedom within current employment law to set reasonable conduct and disciplinary procedures within their organisation and to ensure workplace safety and workplace standards for which appropriate business operations are in place. I share the noble Lord’s concerns about the level of violence and abuse faced by staff. The union of which I am a member has campaigned on that for many years. The level of shop theft that we are seeing is unacceptable. However, in the light of the legal position I have set out, and the lateness of the hour, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment. Given the lateness of the hour, I have just remembered that I have been a member of USDAW not for 55 years but for 46 years—since 1979. I have lost track of the time. I am not even sure what time it is now, this late at night. I have worked it back to 1979 and, with that declaration of interest, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.