Abuse of Customer facing Workers

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of tackling abuse against people in customer facing roles.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare an interest as the chair of the all party parliamentary group on customer service. I am proud to speak on this issue as a Co operative party Member of Parliament. For many years, the Co operative party has been at the forefront of tackling abuse against retail workers. It has worked closely on the issue with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I had hoped to see a member of the union in the Public Gallery, but they have not yet made it.

The sector is encumbered by appalling levels of aggression, harassment and violence. The British Retail Consortium estimates that 1,600 such incidents take place across the UK every day; 118 of those involve physical violence, and 36 involve a weapon. Sadly, many employees have had an experience—ranging from being followed home at night to being knocked unconscious by a shopping basket—that made them fear for their life. Those facing such violence are ordinary hard working people, often with families they are supporting at home. They deserve kindness, respect and the guarantee that they will return home safely from work.

In the light of the overwhelming pressure, the Government have begun to take steps to address the issue. The response has been fronted by the introduction of a stand alone offence of assaulting a retail worker, established by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Those found guilty of the new offence can be sent to prison for up to six months, receive an unlimited fine and be barred from entering certain shops. Alongside that measure, the Government are rolling out facial recognition technology in public spaces and using tags to carefully track the movements of serial offenders.

Those policies have been warmly welcomed by campaigners, who believe they will curb the rising violence and bring attention to retail crime. The voices of our 3 million retail workers are finally being heard, after too many years of being ignored. We cannot, however, expect those voices to fall silent any time soon. They now call on the Government to ensure that the measures introduced by the Crime and Policing Act are successful. Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain how success will be measured. What criteria will her Department use to evaluate the policy and determine whether it adequately protects retail workers?

I am also keen to hear how the Minister interprets the BRC’s latest findings, which record a 20% decline in incidents of retail violence and abuse in the past year. To what extent does she believe that Government policy has contributed to that decline? Or does she believe it has come about due to heavy investment by retailers, improved staff training and closer collaboration with enforcement officials?

In addition, the police must make effective use of the stand alone offence in order to reprimand criminals and deter would be perpetrators. That will require a stronger police presence on high streets and at retail parks and shopping centres, as well as the continuing prioritisation of retail crime. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Government are supporting police forces across the country to achieve that. What challenges may be posed as the policing framework evolves in the next two years?

This is a really important debate. In Falmouth and Truro, we have a lot of abuse of shop workers in connection with shoplifting. An issue in the past has been that people think they are immune if they shoplift something worth less than £200. That is changing and the police will now arrest those people. Will my hon. Friend deal with that different way of tackling shoplifting, which often comes with a level of abuse and violence these days?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of my first jobs was working on a fruit and veg concession in Kwik Save. Kwik Save is no longer on the high street, but I still remember the scourge of shoplifting there, and the fear of approaching would be shoplifters owing to the threat of violence. Very often these are low level crimes. We write them off as nothing, but they can lead to larger problems in society. We need to crack down on that, and I hope the Government will give some indication on that today. I will try to develop that point as my speech goes on.

The staff at St Michael’s Co operative in Yeovil have reported to the police more than 100 incidents of shoplifting a week, but the police presence still is not forthcoming. Do you agree that rural police forces need a lot more funding?

Absolutely. We need more funding and we need more police on the beat. It is vital that we treat these cases seriously. There is a serious underlying threat of violence if would be shoplifters are approached. Shop and retail workers need the assurance that when they call the police, they will come out and take the incident—including any threat that came with it—seriously. I particularly understand that threat in rural areas. A shop owner might decide to close down, leading to the end of what might be the last shop for miles around. It is imperative that we do something about this, particularly in rural areas.

Will the Minister meet representatives of USDAW to discuss how the Government can empower workers to speak out and report incidents of abuse? I want the measures introduced by the Government to successfully tackle retail crime. They have the potential to transform the lives not only of shop workers, but of every person in a customer facing role. I say that because, should the Government’s legislation be successful, it must be implemented across all sectors.

As chair of the all party parliamentary group on customer service, I work closely with the Institute of Customer Service. The team there have campaigned tirelessly against the abuse of all frontline workers through their “Service with Respect” campaign.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is touching on broader sectors, and he is exactly right that this is an epidemic across public facing and customer facing roles. I recently went to a GP surgery where receptionists told me they deal with sometimes weekly incidents of racial abuse. They showed me windows that had been smashed by patients who were unhappy about the service they were receiving. It feels as though there has been a cultural shift in what people deem to be acceptable behaviour towards, for example, ticket guards at stations and receptionists. Recently, a member of staff at our hospital was seriously attacked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to send a clear message that these behaviours are not acceptable and properly resource the police to crack down on these incidents?

I will develop that argument further, but there is nothing more depressing than seeing a sign saying, “Abuse of staff will not be tolerated,” and we seem to see them everywhere now. That was not a sign we saw before. I think things have changed since lockdown. People seem angrier and more aggressive, but by shouting at people in these types of roles, particularly at GP surgeries, they are just stopping vital medical care getting to people who are ill and may need to be transferred to hospital. It has to stop.

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous with his time, and he is making an important speech. At a supermarket in Muirend in my constituency, there is a strong connection between other criminal actions—particularly shoplifting—and abuse of staff and sometimes physical violence towards staff. Do you agree that the UK Government must work with the Scottish Government and the police to ensure that we take a co ordinated approach to resolving all retail related crime, because that often leads to abuse of shop workers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need a co ordinated response, including across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, this abuse does not stop at the border. It does not happen because someone is Scottish or English; it happens everywhere, and we should have a co ordinated response from the four Governments of the United Kingdom to address it. He is absolutely right to bring that up.

The “Service with Respect” campaign’s proposals would encompass 60% of the UK workforce, or around 18 million people. Of those, 42% say they experienced abuse from customers in 2025, up from 36% the previous year. Although these figures are alarming, they do not come as a shock to me. My first job was in a bookmaker’s. As a result, my first experience in a customer facing role was marred by violence and constant abuse. I distinctly remember the undercurrent of aggression that ran through every shop that I worked in. That only intensified when I worked alone, and low level verbal and physical harassment soon became the norm.

That is not isolated to betting shops in south Wales. Across the UK, 90% of staff have witnessed violence or threats of violence by at least one customer, and 75% have been told that they or their colleagues will be assaulted after leaving work—abuse is not confined to the workplace.

Before becoming an MP, I worked in a bank—for my sins—and banking is another sector in which employees routinely face abuse. They work directly with customers’ finances, often assisting them in times of stress and vulnerability. That can heighten tensions, increasing the likelihood that meetings will escalate into harassment, intimidation and threats of violence. Indeed, data collected from UK Finance members suggested that 10,503 incidents of abuse were directed at bank and building society staff in 2024. That is nearly double the figure in the previous year.

Risks encountered by customer facing banking staff are often overlooked in debates such as this. Given the sector’s important role at the heart of our communities, I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why the amendment sought by UK Finance to the Crime and Policing Bill was not taken forward by the Government. That amendment would have extended the offence of assaulting a retail worker to the banking sector—a timely development amid the growing number of protests organised against banking staff.

Finally, I cannot ignore the scourge of harassment faced by public transport workers. In a survey of more than 600 RMT members, nearly two thirds had experienced customer violence in the past year. Of those, 70% agreed that abuse on public transport had increased on the year prior. For me, this is personal: both my mother and my stepfather worked on the valleys line and, sadly, abuse was part of their daily lives. In the light of the Crime and Policing Act, the RMT is campaigning with renewed vigour for the introduction of stronger legal protections for its members. At a station, a transport worker and a retail worker can be working in close proximity; nevertheless, if both are assaulted, they will be eligible for different levels of legal protection. That disparity is unacceptable.

In addition, the Scottish Government have pledged to create a stand alone offence of assaulting a public transport worker. When that comes into force, those working on a service in Scotland will be afforded significantly stronger protections than those assaulted south of the border—even on the same train service. I hope the Minister will meet representatives of the RMT to discuss how that problem can be alleviated. If the Department requires more evidence before doing so, I urge it to create a cross industry working group composed of transport professionals, the unions and officials from the civil service.

So far, I have highlighted the abuse faced by employees in just three sectors, but I could go on—to the call centre staff, the hospitality workers, the utility engineers or simply the caseworkers in our constituency offices—and we have yet to touch on the impacts of such abuse. The Institute of Customer Service reports that workplace abuse causes one third of employees to consider leaving their jobs and one quarter to take sick leave. When workers begin to disengage in that way, the services they provide suffer, the businesses they work for suffer and, ultimately, the communities they serve suffer. Incidents of abuse can have a debilitating effect on a workplace long after the perpetrators have fled and the immediate dangers have passed. In the most severe cases, staff are left with physical injuries, insomnia, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety or depression.

Neither the human nor the economic costs can be fully explained, let alone calculated. Although sick leave has been priced at £1 billion a year, the costs of replacing those who leave their roles, training new staff and undertaking legal proceedings push that figure far higher.

I apologise for the intervention and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has touched on a point that I was talking about with my colleagues from USDAW in Redditch, which is the number of members they have lost from the workforce who are now on benefits or receiving support. They were chased out of the workforce due to their experiences, because we are not protecting people in their places of work, which are often their places of home and community as well.

My hon. Friend should not apologise for making an intervention like that. He is absolutely on the point there. We forget about the economic and the human costs of this. It is costing the economy billions of pounds, which could be saved if we nipped it in the bud right now. I hope the Minister will address that when she winds up the debate. If the Department deems the stand alone offence of assaulting a retail worker successful, will it extend that provision to encompass all other customer facing roles? If an answer cannot be given currently, will she set out a timetable for a review process?

We are on the brink of real, tangible change. Vital protections for people in customer facing roles are within reach, thanks to the efforts of the Co operative party, USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, the RMT and the Institute of Customer Service, among others. Extending the stand alone offence of assaulting a retail worker to all sectors would be transformative, vastly improving the lives of millions across the country, but that will be achieved only if this Labour Government continue to stick by the side of the workers and trade unions. These groups are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our communities. They must be protected with the full force of the law. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that she is level headed and will come up with some good ideas. I thank her for listening.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I also remind Members that they must always talk through the Chair. I know it is a little strange, but you have to address each other as “he” and “she”. I think I heard “you” three times.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for telling us the stories of this issue with passion, belief and conviction, as he so often does. He brought them to our attention capably today. It is always a pleasure to come along and support him. Indeed, I always do because he brings issues to the Chamber that are pertinent to me, which I will explain in relation to my constituency. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—she is back as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), is also here again. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”, only with a different subject. We wake up at 6 o’clock when the alarm goes off, but I digress.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, as that is my duty here on behalf of my constituents in Strangford. When we talk about the rise of retail crime and abuse against customer facing workers in Northern Ireland, we are talking not about isolated incidents but about a systematic, daily onslaught against our high streets. I am sad to say it is at that level in my constituency.

The latest figures from Retailers Against Crime expose the terrifying scale of the problem. Shoplifting in Northern Ireland has surged by a staggering 33% year on year. Let us be clear: this is not petty theft, but highly organised, aggressive criminal behaviour that has caused retail financial losses to skyrocket by some 45%. Far worse, it is not just a financial toll; there is a devastating human cost, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said. That cost is the people who never thought that they would ever be threatened at their place of work, who probably know everybody in the community and who suddenly find themselves being threatened, traumatised and unable to cope. They never envisaged that as part of their job.

The retail union USDAW has revealed the deeply alarming statistic that 18% of shop workers in Northern Ireland suffered a direct physical attack over a single 12-month period. That means that nearly one in five workers went to do their job and ended up being physically assaulted. That is why this debate is incredibly helpful for our constituents and for those who want change and protection for shop workers.

My son Jamie, my eldest boy, was the manager of Shop 4 U on Newtownards High Street. He left that job some five years ago, but at that time he was the manager. It is a very big shop with an off licence at the end of it. One night, as so often happened at that time, a guy came in, probably high on drugs. He had a knife in his hand and threatened Jamie. Jamie was right to step back and say, “Look, you go ahead.” Why would someone throw themselves in front of somebody with a knife who is perhaps unable to understand their pleas, or who is aggressive enough to ignore those pleas, whatever they may be? Why would someone do that if it is only for a bottle of whisky or gin or a dozen beers? A life is worth more than that. On that occasion they had CCTV in the shop, so they were able to chase up the individual and see where they came from.

My point is that the traumatic effect that that has on people will differ from person to person, character to character and personality to personality. Jamie was probably able to get over it because he is a strong young man. Somebody else who is threatened by a person with a knife may not be able to get over it. What about the ladies in the shop, for instance? What if Jamie had not been there as the manager of the store? I often think of how they would have responded. We look back at those things.

Furthermore, some 60% of all violent incidents, threats and verbal tirades directed at local shop staff are triggered by confronting shoplifters. Physical abuse is one thing, but verbal abuse can be almost as terrifying because of the aggression behind it. Our retail staff have been forced on to the frontline. It used to be a case of, “Let’s go and do me six hours, four hours, eight hours in the shop and fill the shelves, speak to the people, look after the customers.” But now they get threatened and, all of a sudden, their job is not the job they signed up for. They face everything from physical intimidation to the terrifying threat of ammonia and acid attacks. Bleach is used against them as well.

Our official Police Service of Northern Ireland data shows an overall decrease of 2.3% in standard police logs, which tells us a dangerous truth. It is one that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned and he is right. That is also my perception in my constituency. It proves there is a massive under reporting gap: every verbal or physical attack on a shop worker might not be reported to the police. If it is reported to the police, is there a reaction? That is what the hon. Gentleman referred to. Shop workers endure verbal abuse and threats every single day, but they do not report it because they feel the system has abandoned them. If they feel the system has abandoned them, the system has to change.

We cannot look at the numbers and do nothing. Our independent shops have been forced to absorb a massive crime tax just to pay for security. I am the oldest person in this Chamber—I suspect by far—and I can remember going to the shops down the road and there was not a security man in the shop. There was never any need to have a security person in the shop. There was no need for CCTV cameras. A police van was always available, by the way. It was never too far away. It was always on the beat, but things have changed.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the work that organisations such as the Harrogate business improvement district do to support the town centre in Harrogate. It has recently hired a business crime officer who has 30 years’ experience in policing. Having organisations that connect the shops, the town centre, the police and the council, keeping everyone looped together, adds real value to our communities. It helps keep them safe and reduces crime and threats to shop workers.

The hon. Gentleman always brings something pertinent to the debate, so I thank him for that. That is a positive step forward and probably one of the things that the Minister will respond to when she concludes.

We are talking about absorbing a crime tax just to pay for security when staff live in fear. They need to know that abuse is not acceptable, whether they are paid a minimum wage or £1 million a year. A job should never determine the abuse that someone has. We need to make that point very clear today.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for securing the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and to the contributions of the two shadow spokespersons and the speakers who follow me.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and on the passionate way in which he laid out the case. The Crime and Policing Act was a key moment in our journey to a society in which the job that we do does not determine how we are treated at work, and retail workers across my constituency are now safer, thanks to the actions of this Government and the campaigning by the Co operative party and USDAW in particular.

Before I was elected, I went to visit Central Co op workers in my constituency in Stretton, Horninglow and Winshill, and I was shocked by what I heard. Pretty much every worker that I spoke to had faced verbal or physical abuse of some kind simply for doing their job. They were proud, hard working people simply going out to do a job and provide for their family.

Sexism and racism makes women workers and workers of colour even more vulnerable. Probably the most horrific story I heard when I spoke to those workers was about a female colleague doused in liquid and threatened with a lighter. I cannot imagine what that would have been like for her in the moment and then reflecting on it afterwards. But in true brave spirit, she was back at work within days. Often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, the trauma of that abuse goes home with people. It does not just affect them and their mood; their wider family are impacted, too. That abuse is an assault on their pride in who they are.

Often, retail workers, particularly those who work in shops, will live local to where they work. I heard one case of a female shop worker who was verbally assaulted and then saw the person who had committed that abuse as she was walking home in her uniform. Due to this Labour Government making assault against retail workers a specific offence, I can say to those people I met, “We have heard you. We have acted.”

It must be noted that the law change did not include verbal abuse or wider customer facing roles, so that is why I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on securing this debate and on the points that he has made. I cannot pretend that things will change just because the law has changed—sadly, they will not. The fact that we have to put up signs in shops and hospitals and on our buses asking people to be kind shows that, as a society, the basic respect that we had for each other has broken down. I hope that we can restore that.

The change in the law was, however, a clear statement that assault of retail workers will not be tolerated. We have repealed the appalling Tory law that meant that those stealing items under £200 were effectively decriminalised.

A frustration I have heard about local enforcement is that even if the issues are reported—they are often not, unfortunately, because people give up—and the police come out, and an arrest is made for theft, abuse or the other things we are discussing today, the perpetrator can be back on the street that day, often committing the same sorts of offences, because they are not held in custody. They will wait a long time to go to court, and prisons are in a dire state after 14 years of Tory government left us with no places.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about alternative forms of punishment and deterrence? That could be banning orders from town centres, banning orders from the transport system of people who persistently dodge fares and assault and abuse staff, and other forms of deterrent to stop these behaviours blighting our town centres and public services.

My hon. Friend makes a great point. I have often heard about repeat offenders and the same sort of people coming into the shop. Workers often have to protect themselves from individuals who they know are going to commit a criminal act.

Unfortunately, abuse against customer facing workers happens everywhere in society. I have heard that from workers across different sectors of our economy. I should probably declare my membership of Unison and the GMB union. I recently met GMB Swissport members at East Midlands airport about their “Airport Workers Against Abuse” campaign. I heard their shocking stories about the physical attacks and verbal abuse they suffer in terminals. There is a difference between how people can be policed landside versus airside. As there are fewer protections airside, workers are more vulnerable. Travelling abroad is often a very stressful time, but there is no excuse to take it out on the hard working men and women who get us to where we want to be. The Government and the airports should listen to the GMB’s campaign and introduce stricter penalties to protect the dignity of our airport workers.

Those working in customer facing roles in my constituency, whether in a pub or a nursery or driving a bus, deserve to have dignity at work and the right to do their job without facing abuse. It is on us to put in place the conditions to make sure that happens.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and on his excellent opening remarks.

Abuse against people in customer facing roles is always unacceptable. No one should ever have to face abuse in their place of work. The Liberal Democrats were supportive of the measures included in the recent Crime and Policing Act 2026, which introduced the specific recording of offences of assault against retail workers. After years of increasing violence and abuse experienced by those working in retail and other frontline work, the introduction of this offence should act as a strong deterrent against abuse and allow data on such abuse to be more reliably recorded.

Although there has been an improvement on the legal deterrence front and in the collection of data, we need greater enforcement to ensure that offenders are reprimanded for committing acts of abuse. After a decade of cuts to police numbers and resources, people want a return to having a visible police presence in their communities, focusing on preventing and solving crime. Restoring a permanent police presence on our local high streets is the most effective way to deter rogue operators and give people confidence to report illicit behaviour.

This Labour Government promised the public 13,000 more police officers. Instead, officer numbers have fallen. By March this year, there were 4,000 fewer frontline officers than the year before. Over the past 18 months, we have seen not only a reduction of force numbers, but a decline in policing resources. In my Richmond Park constituency, there is now no 24/7 police front counter in the whole of Richmond borough, and the Royal Parks police force has been disbanded, increasing pressure on neighbourhood teams. Just this week, police in Richmond Park had to make an operational decision about whether to provide a presence by Teddington Lock to deter children from jumping off the lock, which puts them at risk of drowning, or to police bonfires, drug use and antisocial behaviour on Richmond Green. I do not envy the officers who have to make those operational decisions, but the lack of funding has put our local force in that position.

What has been most noticeable in our community is the rise of retail crime. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to do more to address this.

Domestic abuse survivors who work in retail roles are at particular risk in that their perpetrators often know exactly where they are, which till they might be working at and what their shift patterns are. The perpetrators can continue to perpetrate abuse even while their victim or survivor is at work. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government need to go even further to provide protections to specifically protect domestic abuse survivors in retail roles?

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention and for all his work. He speaks so powerfully for the victims of domestic abuse, and I thank him for taking this opportunity to raise the issue. I hope that the Minister has heard what he said, because it is an extremely serious point. We should have the victims of domestic abuse at the front of our minds when we think about this issue and the particular risk that it creates for them.

Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers, but means that staff members, often young people, are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has effectively become decriminalised. Thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal, and staff do not feel protected by law enforcement. It is incredibly frustrating that the Government have not connected the dots between increased fear and crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for more money for CCTV through loans of up to £6,500 to small independent convenience stores so that they can install modern CCTV to deter shoplifting and make our high streets safer. The installation of CCTV would act as a deterrent against shoplifting and abuse against staff, save money for police forces by preventing such crimes in the first place, and allow them to conclude investigations more quickly because of a stronger evidence base.

Shop owners and staff members are often told by the police that it is not a cost effective use of resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts, but to every local business and paying customer it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having on our society and to take this issue seriously.

Does my hon. Friend agree that police powers could be beefed up through the use of public spaces protection orders? People in customer facing roles often end up with abuse from people who might have been drinking. Does she agree that we should look at how those powers could be better used, given that communities, organisations, councils and businesses want them to be enforced?

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. We could be doing so much more, not just through the police but across society in different ways, to increase safety on our high streets. People need to know that they are backed up by the police, and that they have a strong and effective police presence to turn to when they have an issue.

The vast majority of abuse that customer facing staff receive on a day to day basis may not come under the authority of the police. That is especially relevant for female members of staff, who will experience crude comments, unsolicited flirting and, at times, explicit harassment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) raised. Having to work under such conditions can cause anxiety in staff members and make them feel extremely uncomfortable at work. A study by Unite found that 56% of women in the workplace have been subject to sexually offensive jokes, 43% have been inappropriately touched and 25% have experienced sexual harassment. In addition, a TUC survey found that 30% of women who experience harassment do not report it to their employer. This goes so much further than just abuse for customer facing staff; it speaks to a culture across some workplaces in the UK, which we need a much more fundamental approach to root out and change.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.

As others have noted, the abuse faced by many people working in customer facing roles is deeply distressing. We should all be concerned by the rise in abuse, threats and physical assault against people just trying to do their jobs. The trend cannot be divorced from the rise in so called petty crime, including shoplifting, as several hon. Members have highlighted. According to a survey conducted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, in cases where retail staff faced abuse, 70% of incidents had been triggered by shoplifting. Of those incidents, two thirds were related to drug addiction or suspected drug addiction.

Failing to clamp down on crimes such as shoplifting is not cost free. It does not just make life terrible for the businesses that are the direct victims of the theft; it puts retail workers and the public at risk. The kind of people who are engaged in habitual shoplifting are often involved in other types of crime, and they represent a very real danger to us all. Unfortunately, under this Government’s Sentencing Act 2026, up to 12,000 of this country’s most prolific shoplifters will avoid jail altogether, leaving them free to not just continue stealing but abuse and harass retail workers.

While prolific offenders walk free, law abiding people face ever more rules and restrictions, and ever greater suspicion from the authorities. Instead of going after the hyper prolific offenders who drive such a disproportionate amount of crime in this country, the state responds by making life harder for ordinary people. Is it any wonder that so many people now feel that they are living under something called anarcho tyranny? In such circumstances, the state is either unable or unwilling to control violent crime, theft and genuine disorder. While failing to enforce the law against genuine criminals, the state vigorously and inflexibly enforces a mountain of complex, often seemingly arbitrary rules on ordinary people who work hard, pay their taxes and do the right thing.

That can produce infuriating and ludicrous outcomes. Shop Around the Clock, a fabulous store in St Michaels in my constituency, is plagued by shoplifting. Suki, who manages the business, very kindly had me in for a morning shift last Friday. He told me that, despite years of reporting regular shoplifting to the police, the only time they had visited was to let him know that the pictures he had put up of regular thieves violated GDPR. He also walked me through his report to the police of the latest shoplifting incident he had suffered that Tuesday. The process was slow and repetitive—easily 10 times as long as it needed to be. For small business owners like Suki, who are already doing a million things at once, it is often hard to justify that wasted time. Especially given advances in technology, this seems a crazy way to insist that people record crimes.

This is the experience of far too many people in Britain today. They feel their own behaviour is restricted, and they meet with resistance and hassle when they engage with the authorities, yet they see crime and disorder go unpunished. If they try to do something to stop the crime themselves, they are crushed. The rise in attacks against retail workers is one terrible manifestation of this, but there are many.

This is clearly completely unfair but, fortunately, there is a solution. Speak to any member of the British public and they will be able to tell you exactly what to do: spend less time on policing speech and filling out paperwork and more time on catching thieves; give police forces the tools they need to tackle these crimes; and, when we catch a career criminal, make sure that they serve a proper prison sentence. Put simply, we can fix this problem by pursuing criminals, enforcing the law and letting law abiding people get on with their lives. Given that so much of this abuse is triggered by shoplifting, and given how onerous the process of reporting it is, my main, specific question to the Minister is this: what kind of conversations has she had about changing the online reporting system, particularly in the light of technology innovations that could make it so much simpler and faster?

I call the Minister. You have until about 5.30 pm; please leave a little time for the Member in charge to wind up.

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Members might be pleased to know that I probably will not take all the time available to me—perhaps I will give them a few minutes of their life back to do something else.

I want to start by saying what an important debate this is. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) is absolutely right to bring the issue of the abuse of shop workers to this place. It is enormously important, and many Members of Parliament have campaigned for many years for the legislation that we have just passed, alongside the incredible work of the Co op, USDAW and others. When I was shadow Policing Minister, I remember introducing a similar amendment to Government legislation and debating it with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was the Policing Minister at the time. He argued that there was no need for these measures, because abuse of a shop worker is an aggravating factor, and that the evidence did not support their introduction. That argument was wrong, and I am really pleased that we have passed this law.

It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said throughout his speech, we need to make sure we are implementing the legislation and seeing results, and that we use it now that we have it. It sends a powerful message that we in this place see and understand this behaviour, and that we will not tolerate it any more. It is important that we say that loud and clear.

The speeches made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) were really important and spoke to the nub of the problem. The hon. Member for Strangford said that people feel that the system has abandoned them, and that is right. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), also spoke about the way in which people who live by the rules feel that everybody else seems to be getting away with not living by the rules. That has wider consequences for our society than just the problem of retail crime and the abuse of shop workers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter spoke of a very serious case in which somebody was doused with liquid and then threatened with being set on fire. That is horrific. The abuse that shop workers receive, which was mentioned by the spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), ranges from those very extreme cases to the abuse that people get every day. I remember talking to shop workers at my local Co op about the abuse they faced. Someone said, “Well, it’s just part of the job.” No, it is not. It needs to stop and we need to make sure we are doing all the right things.

The Minister does fantastic work in her area. Will she join me in commending the work that organisations and charities such as Victim Support do to help people who find themselves in the horrendous situation that she outlined and that we have heard about from Members across the Chamber? Will she elaborate on the support she and her colleagues in other Departments give to people who work in shops and other customer facing roles?

The hon. Member is right that Victim Support and other organisations give really important support to people in such situations. Across different Departments, we all have a role to play in trying to stop this abuse and the retail crime that goes alongside so much of it. I will go into that in more detail.

First, I will set out the statistics on shop theft, which drives a lot of the abuse that we see and is often perpetrated by prolific offenders. In the year before we came to power, there was a 30% rise in shop theft, and in the past year there has been a 1% fall. A 1% fall does not sound great, but when we compare it with a 30% rise, it shows that we are completely turning the tide. I know that members of the public will say, “Well, that’s just statistics; that’s not my experience,” and it will take us a while to make people feel safer and tackle the huge problem that we still have. I want to reassure Members that—my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about this—because of the policing interventions that we have done and because of what a lot of shops have done, we are beginning to turn the tide on shop theft. That is important.

A lot of the larger retailers admittedly have more funds to do this, but the Co operative Group, for example, has done incredible things to design out crime in its shops, and it has seen the biggest fall compared with other retailers. Lots of others are doing interesting things, whether that is having live facial recognition; designing out the ability for people to get behind the shop counter and steal some of the alcohol that might be there; having cameras on shop workers; or having security people. All those things are undoubtedly making a difference, and so is the ability of our police to respond.

We have been clear with our wonderful police that we want them in our neighbourhoods tackling this type of crime. We have already seen over 3,000 more police in our neighbourhoods, and we have committed to having 13,000. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson talked about police numbers. The previous Government cut 20,000 police and then recruited 20,000 police, but they put 12,000 of them behind desks. Our measure is not about exact numbers—we want 13,000 more police in our communities, and we want outcomes. That is what we are driving towards. There are other things that we can do and that we are doing in this space that will also make a difference, and we will keep striving to do more.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent talked about technology, databases and wanting to cut bureaucracy for our police. I 100% agree with that. Last week, we launched PoliceAI with £75 million of funding to use AI to take away some of the nonsense bureaucracy that our police have to do. I have given it two first tasks in relation to outward facing technology: one is to tackle tool theft and the other is to tackle retail crime. There are lots of quite good systems that different parts of the country are using to more easily record shop theft and upload imagery and CCTV. We want to design AI that can read across all of those so that the police can easily see and bring together who the prolific offenders are.

There was talk of prolific offenders in this debate, and it is true that a small cohort of people are responsible for a large amount of retail crime and abuse against shop workers. They are often people with very complex needs—they will have an addiction; they will be drug addicts or alcoholics—and we in the Home Office are designing a programme to target those prolific offenders.

Some areas do that already, and people have been doing it increasingly, but there are things that we can put in place to help us really target that prolific cohort, whether that is providing the support they need to get into treatment or more interventions to make sure they cannot do what they want to. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said that we should be doing more to use things like orders to stop people coming into a community, or tagging. I think we need to be using all of those more, and we are designing a programme of work to do exactly that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked if I would meet USDAW, and I am always very happy to do that. I have done so many times, but it is probably timely that I meet it again now that the Crime and Policing Act has been passed. He also asked how we would measure progress. We will measure what happens with the absolute numbers and the reporting of these issues, and whether people are reporting—whether that is through USDAW or our links in the retail sector. We will measure it through the crime statistics and what is happening as a result.

My hon. Friend also asked, importantly, why the provision is defined as being just about shop workers and why we did not make it wider to include transport workers or people who work in banks, for example. We deliberately kept it narrow to avoid any ambiguity in the courts. I know people disagree with that, but we just have to agree to disagree; that is what we have done in the legislation. However, if the legislation makes a marked difference, which we hope it will, of course we will need to look at whether the provision should apply elsewhere.

I have met representatives from banks, and I have had conversations about the particular challenges they have. They face the problem of abuse—I do not want to deny that—but the frequent protests they are increasingly experiencing are a slightly different issue, and one that we are talking to them about to try to support them through.

With the number of police in our communities going up; with the new rule that all thefts under £200 have to be investigated; with the new tech, IT and AI that can help us read across all these different systems; with the law in place; with the police giving a strong message that we want to see people punished for abusing shop workers; and with the work that we are beginning to do on prolific offenders, hopefully we will increasingly see results. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and everybody here has made is that we cannot accept this as normal behaviour—it is not. We will not tolerate it, and we will keep working until we tackle it.

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Will she comment on something that I have witnessed on social media: the filming of shop workers in customer facing roles to generate content and clicks? That is pervasive and nasty in nature. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what the Government could do to tackle that issue?

There is a wider question about social media and how it sometimes drives these kinds of behaviours. People are almost goading each other to do more extreme activities—I have heard about that in a number of areas. This week, I was told about a new trend that I find utterly extraordinary: people are breaking into houses, filming someone asleep, and then leaving and putting that on social media. That is horrific. They do not take anything or do anything, but they are basically competing with each other to do that. Clearly, we are having a national debate, and the Government have taken action, about the issue of under-16s, but there is a much bigger debate still to have about social media and how it is driving these kinds of behaviours.

Having said that I would be brief, I seem not to have been as brief as I expected. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on his powerful speech and on securing this really good debate. He should be assured that the Government are on the side of people who just want to do their job, and who should not be abused while they are doing that job. That is not acceptable, and we will keep doing what we can.

Again, I pay tribute to the Co operative party, USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, the Institute of Customer Service and all the others who have worked so tirelessly and diligently to keep this issue on the political radar. The work they are doing is really important.

I also pay tribute to everybody who spoke in this debate, including the Front Bench spokespeople for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). It has been proved again that even though we may disagree about our methods, we all ultimately want the same thing: for people to go about their work in a safe manner and enjoy their jobs like they used to.

I also pay tribute to the Minister. I knew I would end up saying this, but the Minister really gets this issue, and I was encouraged by her comments. In particular, I am pleased that she has agreed to meet USDAW—I know she has already met it and the RMT. I know that the Crime and Policing Act is relatively new, as it passed only this year, and we have to see how it works out. I genuinely hope that it is successful, and I think it will be, but for legislation to be successful, it has to be properly enforced. I hope that will continue to happen across the country with various police forces. I obviously understand that the Minister has to see how the law pans out, but I am pleased that she has committed to looking again, at some point in the future, at bank staff and transport workers, who are also being abused on a daily basis.

I thank everybody who took part in this worthwhile debate. It has been harrowing in parts to listen to some of the examples. We have quoted an awful lot of statistics in this debate—we do in this place generally—but behind those statistics are families sending somebody out to work who will unfortunately be in the line of danger. I am hopeful that, with this legislation, we can bring about the change that is desperately needed.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of tackling abuse against people in customer facing roles.

Sitting adjourned.