Welcome to my Blog

It mostly covers my work as UNISON Scotland's Head of Policy and Public Affairs although views are my own. For full coverage of UNISON Scotland's policy and campaigns please visit our web site. You can also follow me on Twitter. I hope you find this blog interesting and I would welcome your comments.

Monday, 11 December 2017

Eliminating fuel poverty requires more than a process

As the statutory target to eliminate fuel poverty in Scotland has come and gone, will a new strategy do any better?

The Scottish Government has published a consultation paper on a new fuel poverty strategy for Scotland. The consultation looks at the existing approach and legislative framework and sets out proposals for a new Fuel Poverty Strategy in Spring next year. Targets will be enshrined in a Warm Homes Bill later in 2018.

The number of households in fuel poverty fell slightly in the latest Scottish House Condition survey thanks to falling fuel prices. However, still almost one third of homes suffer under the current definition and the numbers are likely to rise again with the latest fuel price increases. 

 The new definition excludes housing costs and is intended to focus attention on low income households, rather than the 47% of the current fuel poor who are not income poor. There will still be challenges in reaching the standard heating regime because households self-disconnect, due to low incomes. Cuts in social security will exacerbate this. While the new definition is certainly more complex, it does target efforts on the right group. Although with insecure work, varied incomes are more common and many households are likely to fall in and out of the definition.

There are three main elements to tackling fuel poverty - the price of fuel, energy efficiency/use and household income. The first is largely reserved, although energy policy is a factor. Energy efficiency is devolved and household income has devolved and reserved elements, including social security.

This means the strategy rightly has a focus on energy efficiency. Ambitions are fine, but investment is better. The Scottish Government cut funding to £45m in 2007/08; largely because they thought the problem had been resolved. It has now recovered to £129m, although this is well below the £200m Energy Action Scotland warned was needed to meet the 2016 target.

There are some particular challenges in Scotland. Not only are we a cold country, but fuel costs in rural areas are significantly higher. Typically, £2,200 in remote rural areas, compared to £1,400 in the UK as a whole. There are particular challenges in island communities. We also have large areas off the gas grid, which matters for heating. 

It is also important that we retain efficient area based schemes that strengthen communities, rather than just micro targeting individual households. The proxies used to identify fuel poor households generally work, but need to be flexibly applied to reflect local needs.

The consultation paper is again strong on ambition. Objectives like 'Households are able to enjoy a warm home' is hard to disagree with. Achieving this apparently requires plenty of partnership working and linking in to other strategies. While this is probably true, it does feel rather process driven - hard targets, programmes and investment are in short supply.

A number of the organisations currently working in 'partnership' complain about short term funding. They build up expertise and services and then the funding comes to an end. Publicity, online and telephone services have their place, but for hard to reach households it requires an advisor in the household. There has been an improvement in skilling staff like social workers and community nurses, since some of the early schemes UNISON did with the Keeping Scotland Warm partnership. However, we could do more in signposting people towards specialist advice. Local authority services are under particular pressure due to cuts.

The new statutory target is to eliminate fuel poverty (new definition) by 2040, with a review at 2030. There is considerable scepticism of the description of this as 'ambitious', given the long timescale. We should have learned a thing or two during the past 16 years, to make another 23 year target a bit excessive.

The problem is that achieving this target depends on a range of variables, particularly fuel prices and incomes. None of these are likely to be addressed without a serious political commitment to eliminate poverty more generally. 

Friday, 24 November 2017

UK Budget fall out

I set out our immediate reaction to the UK Budget in Briefing 91 on Wednesday. In the light of day, the numbers are if anything slightly worse, although a real terms revenue cut of £199m, remains the bottom line.

The SPICe briefing calculates that the DEL Resource figures (that’s revenue or day to day spending) have increased by £347m over the period to 2020 compared with the plans set out in March. DEL Capital plans have increased by £509m over the period to 2021 compared with March plans. £1,115m in Barnett consequentials derive from Financial Transactions, which must ultimately be repaid to HM Treasury.

Overall, the DEL Resource budget will increase in cash terms in 2018-19 by 0.7%, which represents a real terms fall of 0.8%. This real terms figure is also based on a pretty optimistic view of inflation and the GDP Deflator in the OBR report. With CPI currently at 3%, getting down to 1.5-2%% next year looks overly ambitious.

We can also see who gains the most from this budget and it’s not the working poor. As JRF put it:
“Today’s announcement will help to ease the initial problems that many people face when moving over to Universal Credit, but the Government has decided to push ahead with big cuts to the amount of money people will receive. By failing to end the benefits freeze, the Government will oversee almost half a million extra people in poverty by the end of this Parliament. The Government’s big spending commitments for stamp duty giveaways and tax cuts prioritised higher earning households, with little support for people who need it most”

And it looks like any pay increase will have to be funded from existing budgets.

On public spending the IFS calculates that day to day spending on public services outside of the NHS is due to fall by yet another 7% over the next five years. Even the NHS is being squeezed as this table shows.

And no, austerity isn't coming to an end any time soon. The Chancellor clearly hasn't heard of the adage, 'when in a hole stop digging!'

The one positive from the UK Budget is the VAT exemption for police and fire services that provides around £37m extra for those services, but no backdating. There was an entertaining spat between the SNP and the Tories on this issue in the Scottish Parliament, but the truth is that neither of them have much to shout about.

In short, it was UNISON that first highlighted the risk of losing this exemption when national services were first proposed. The faces and frantic scribbling at the meeting, showed that few if any officials had considered this.

We were then told it would be sorted with HMRC and the Treasury. After some time and no response, we used Freedom of Information requests to tease out what was going on. It turned out that not only had the Treasury said that the s33 exemption would not apply, but the Scottish Government had been told that before they issued the final consultation.

We then proposed a way of structuring national services, which would have retained the exemption. However, that was also ignored by both the Scottish Government and the Tories who voted the Bill through.

As I said at the FBU lobby of parliament yesterday - the result is the loss of some £140m of revenue that could be used to keep emergency services going and award our members a decent pay rise.

So, the UK Budget wash up remains pretty grim - over to the finance secretary for the draft Scottish Budget on 14 December. Not an easy task as I explain in the Scotsman, and not made any easier by Wednesday’s smoke and mirrors.

Monday, 20 November 2017

Brexit impact on real wages

A new analysis published today by the LSE Centre for Economic Performance shows that real wages have taken a hit since Brexit and Scotland is amongst the hardest hit areas of the UK.

The EU referendum outcome increased prices by 1.7%, which means that real wages in June 2017 were 1.7% lower than they otherwise would have been. This decline is equivalent to a £448 cut in annual pay for the average worker.

Put another way, this means the increase in inflation due to the Brexit vote has cost the average worker almost one week’s wages (4.4 working days’ wages, to be precise). Unless Brexit increases real wages in future years, this pay cut will be permanent. 

Households’ overall import exposure is similar throughout the income distribution. Poorer households spend relatively more on food and drinks, which have high import shares, but also on rent, which has a very low import share. Likewise, richer households spend relatively more on some high import share products such as fuels, but also spend a higher proportion of their budget on domestically produced services such as hotels and restaurant meals. 

Although the inflation effect differs little across income deciles, there are stark differences across regions. In general, the north of England is harder hit than the south. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are the worst affected areas. Compared with the UK average, the increase in inflation due to the vote is 0.18 percentage points higher in Scotland, 0.21 percentage points higher in Wales and 0.47 percentage points higher in Northern Ireland. 

This reinforces the need for the Chancellor on Wednesday to ensure that Scotland, and the UK, gets a pay rise.

Wednesday, 15 November 2017

Britain needs a pay rise

Today is the seventh month in a row that prices have gone up faster than wages. The Chancellor needs to wake up next week – Britain needs a pay rise.

As this chart from the Resolution Foundation shows, it's the public sector that is taking the big hit.

More than 300,000 people on low incomes have been given a pay boost by the UK government’s “national living wage”. Despite scaremongering from some employers that the move to raise minimum salary levels would result in massive job losses, unemployment is at a 40 year low. However, the number of people earning below the voluntary real living wage reached a record high, rising from 6 million to 6.2 million. This is the amount needed to achieve an acceptable standard of living. That’s why he needs to move the living wage for all workers (including the u/25s) towards £10 per hour.

The Chancellor should also take note of the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice which has highlighted that the modest economic recovery since 2010, does not reflect the lived experience of the majority of people in society. One single finding from new IPPR analysis demonstrates that rising GDP no longer guarantees better pay in the economy.

As this chart shows, between 2010 and 2016, official GDP per employee has risen by 3.5 per cent, yet real wages are 1.1 per cent lower when adjusted for consumer price inflation (CPI). If inflation is calculated to include housing costs (using the RPI measure), real wages are down 7.2 per cent.  

A key factor has been low productivity. A less than virtuous circle has been created by low wages, leading to less investment despite record low interest rates.

The position is probably much worse than the official figures describe. The economist Simon Wren-Lewis points to a mismatch between the ‘official’ and ‘lived’ economy.    That’s because the official measure of real GDP uses an index of output prices to deflate nominal GDP into a ‘real terms’ measure. Output prices are those received by domestic producers, and they exclude things like taxes, retail and wholesale imports and profit margins.

However, the official measure of real earnings is deflated using an index of consumer prices which have trended well above output prices, and to a degree not seen prior to 2010. The result is that rising living costs, as seen in consumer bills, have consistently exceeded the narrower definition of inflation that is used to measure official GDP growth. And they have done so to an extent that is historically unprecedented.

This has a long-term impact on inequality, which also damages the economy. The Oxfam research report, Double Trouble, investigates the relationship between economic inequality and poverty in the UK and examines the trends in relative income poverty rates and income inequality over the period 1961 to 2015/16. They found a positive correlation between income inequality and relative income poverty in the UK over recent decades.

This reinforces the growing body of evidence that high and rising economic inequality is harmful for growth and that tackling poverty alone is not enough to reduce economic disparities and poverty in the long run. The evidence also shows that redistribution is not damaging for economic growth, as even the IMF now concede. A point the UK and Scottish governments should consider in tax and wealth policies.

In next week’s budget the Chancellor needs to recognise that a low wage, low productivity Britain isn’t the way forward for the economy. A real term pay increase for public sector workers, coupled with a £10 minimum wage, is an important starting point in breaking this downward cycle of decline. 

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Health impact of shift working

The health impact of shift working is not well understood. We need more research and better risk assessment to protect workers.

The numbers of staff working shifts is increasing and there has been a marked increase in those working night shifts. While traditionally more men than women have worked shifts, that is changing with most of the new shift workers being women. Scotland has always had a higher proportion of shift workers than the rest of the UK and a range of UNISON’s public service workers are involved including the emergency services, hospitals, social care and in the energy sector.

I was in Stirling today, outlining the health implications to our police branch stewards and discussing how we can help members by designing work better to address these issues.

The research on this issue has identified a number of risk factors associated with shift workers. They are more likely to be obese, suffer from diabetes, smoke (particularly women) and eat less healthily. Interestingly, they are also more likely not to drink alcohol. While there is a statistical correlation between shift workers and these conditions, it is less clear what the causal link is. Shift workers are also more likely to be in lower income groups, who generally have poorer health.

Likely explanations focus on the disruption to circadian rhythms, the body’s internal clock. This can disrupt the workings of the hormone Melatonin, which can lead to poor sleep. We know that the lack of good quality sleep has been linked to obesity, depression, diabetes and heart disease.

A particularly worrying study showed that women working on night shifts for more than 30 years are twice at risk of breast cancer. This is thought to be linked to less Melatonin, which has cancer protective qualities and increased Oestrogen that has the opposite effect.

Another issue is a 40% increase in the risk of cardiovascular disorders. The causal reasons are unclear, but again the disruption to the circadian rhythm, damage to family and social life, stress and poor diet are obvious contributing factors.

So what can be done to limit the risks?

One health site gives the unhelpful advice of ‘get another job’! Although impractical and drastic, it may well be good advice for the over 40’s and those who have worked on shifts for many years. Some behavioural solutions help, such as establishing a stable sleep environment and schedule. Eating small health snacks on shift rather than a large meal, together with exercise and limiting stimulants like caffeine and energy drinks.

We should also be revisiting risk assessments with employers. This involves evaluating shift schedule design - avoiding split shifts, excessive 12 hour shifts and rotating shifts forward. There should be at least 48 hours between shift changes to allow the body to adjust. Occupational health should identify and treat workers who have sleep disorders and ensure more regular health checks from age 40 and those who have worked shifts for more than ten years.

Finally, we need more research to understand the causal links between shift work and ill health. In the meantime there needs to be better awareness of the risks and the actions workers and employers can take to minimise the risks.

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Wealth Tax in Scotland: How it can be done

Richard Leonard's proposed Wealth Tax has attracted some comment on its legality. Here is a guest post from Thompsons Partner Patrick McGuire, setting out why he believes the tax is sound in policy, principle, politics and law.

Thompsons have had some brilliant trainees over the years; some of the best (I was one myself at one point in the dim and distant past).  But even the best trainees need, well, trained; and I think the most important lesson for a new lawyer is to read the case law and think for yourself.

We all fall into the same trap at first.  We think that longer is better.  We think the answer is found in text books.  We fear offering our own opinion.  This approach can result in articulate, wide ranging pieces of work with lots of quotes.  All too often however the absolutely crucial point is barely analysed at all.  

I read a blog recently on Richard Leonard’s Wealth Tax proposal that seemed to follow that approach.  It was very lengthy.  It had lots of headings.  It had a huge number of quotes from the various Scotland Acts.  It was on the face of it impressive and perhaps even convincing when it delivered the damning verdict that the Scottish Parliament could not introduce a Wealth Tax.  But when it came the key point of the key legal principle the analysis was all a bit flat and dare I say superficial.  

The blog correctly identified that an Order in Council would be required under section 80B of the Scotland Act 1998 as amended.  But the author of the piece couldn’t help trying to over egg how arduous a process this would be.  Speed in fact the defining characteristic of secondary legislation such as Orders in Council.  If there is political will, there will (good that) be no problem.

The only issue is whether a Wealth Tax would breach Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights [A1P1].  It took the author of the blog 22 paragraphs to get to that absolutely fundamental point before summarily dismissing the Wealth Tax on the basis that taxing a minuscule [my words not his] 1% of the most wealthy’s wealth would breach their right to “peaceful enjoyment of [their] possessions”.  

Case closed then?  

I think not.  I’d suggest it’s a bit more complex than that.  

What constitutes a breach of A1P1 has been the subject of several decisions of our highest court.  It is those cases and the written judgements themselves to where we must turn for an answer.  I have been involved, to a greater and lesser extent, in two of the most relevant court decisions; both judgements of the UK Supreme Court.  The cases are Axa and others  v Lord Advocate [2011]; and Counsel General for Wales [2015].  Both cases related to legislation aimed at assisting victims of asbestos related disease.  

The Supreme Court considered the Convention and all of the previous cases and set out a four point test that must applied to assessing whether a piece of legislation breached A1P1.  This is how Lord Mance in the Wales case described the test:

“(i) whether there is a legitimate aim which could justify a restriction of the relevant protected right,
(ii) whether the measure adopted is rationally connected to that aim,
(iii) whether the aim could have been achieved by a less intrusive measure and
(iv) whether, on a fair balance, the benefits of achieving the aim by the measure outweigh the disbenefits resulting from the restriction of the relevant protected right.”

It is a question of balance - what is the benefit to society weighted against the cost to the impact on any individual affected.  This is sometimes described as the ‘proportionality test’ which comes downs to the same thing - is any negative impact proportionate to the benefits; and can the benefit be achieved by any other means.  

Against that test set by the Supreme Court how does the wealth tax stack up?

(i) is there legitimate aim?  Yes - to inject a significant sum of money into the public purse in Scotland to redress the untold devastation of a decade of austerity on public services 
(ii) is the measure connected to the test - yes.
(iii) could an alternative less obtrusive method be used?  There is no alternative method to the one off fiscal ‘adrenaline shot’ the Wealth Tax will provide.  A significant one off financial injection is required to entirely reshape Scotland’s welfare system and public services.  The only way this can be achieved is through a one off Wealth Tax levied against those in our society with the most wealth.  In terms of “obtrusiveness” I take the view that a levy of only 1% can not be viewed as obtrusive.
(iv) benefits v disbenefits?  The benefits are enormous.  They will change our public services for a generation.  The disbenefit is a minuscule 1% of the wealth of the most wealthy.

Against a detailed analysis of the case law I therefore have little doubt that the Wealth Tax would be legal.  Morally, I have no doubt that it is the right thing to do.  And constitutionally, if the Scottish people called for an Order in Council under s80B that  Westminster refused we would be at a crisis that no one would want or tolerate. 

In summary, the Wealth Tax is sound in policy, principle, politics and law. 

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Raising the standard of residential care

We need to put dignity and respect at the heart of the residential care system. That means better care for residents and supporting the workers who care for them.

I was in the Scottish Parliament today promoting UNISON's new Residential Care Charter. It follows on from our Ethical Care Charter, which has raised standards of care for people living in their own homes. UNISON’s residential care charter calls for:
  • Time to care – to allow staff to properly care for the vulnerable people they look after
  • Proper training and support for staff
  • Decent pay for quality work
  • Adopt measures to protect and support residents, including adequate staff ratios and thorough risk assessments

This summer the Scottish Government published new Health and Social Care Standards, which will be implemented April 2018. They set out what we should expect when using health, social care or social work services in Scotland. The Standards are underpinned by five principles: dignity and respect, compassion, be included, responsive care, and support and wellbeing. The principles themselves are not standards or outcomes but rather reflect the way that everyone should expect to be treated.

Now standards in glossy documents are fine, but what matters is how they are implemented. One of the standards states; "I experience consistency in who provides my care and support and in how it is provided"

According to the Care Inspectorate, almost half of care settings in Scotland are facing difficulty in recruiting the right staff. 59% of care homes for older people reported having one or more staff vacancies. Many more are suffering from high staff turnover. Inspectors regularly identify that stable and consistent staff teams are an important component of high quality social care which supports people well.

Even the private sector employers organisation, Scottish Care, has recognised the need to address workforce issues, they said:

“Social care in Scotland faces a fundamental crisis. The Care Inspectorate report together with our own work at Scottish Care states quite clearly that we are at the point of services becoming unsustainable and unable to deliver given the current recruitment and workforce crisis. The entire fabric of social care will begin to disintegrate without serious intervention and this will have a profound effect on the sustainability of wider health and social care supports."

In Scotland, a residential care worker earns at least the Scottish Living wage of £8.45 an hour. This is significant progress, but workers can earn more stacking shelves in a supermarket. Our own surveys show that younger workers in particular are choosing less demanding jobs than care, which offer more money.

We are only going to change this dynamic if we value those who work in the sector. Yes, care jobs can be satisfying and worthwhile, but that doesn't pay the bills. Care with dignity should not be at the cost of a stretched and dedicated workforce.

Scottish Care has also highlighted a nursing shortage of 28% average vacancies in nursing homes, forcing providers to pay as much as £1000 for one agency nurse to do a night-shift.

Some providers are exiting the sector. Bield Housing and Care are closing 12 care homes in Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Borders, South Lanarkshire and West Lothian by summer 2018. Some 160 elderly people, with dependent needs  including 24 hour personal care and feeding assistance, will be evicted from the place they have called home for decades. Many are over 90 years old.

While the Care Inspectorate does some monitoring of residential care homes, their resources are limited. Councils who contract the services do very little monitoring. Earlier this year UNISON asked councils, under freedom of information, for their monitoring policies. Overall, the responses indicate that contract monitoring is limited to returns from the contractor and review meetings with them. There is very little monitoring of the actual service delivery.

Anyone who listened to the voices of care workers in parliament today will understand that the standard of care needs to improve. 

Better care comes at a price, and so we need to have a debate in Scotland about how care should be funded. That includes difficult discussions about inheritance and contribution, directly or through taxation. It is crystal clear that we cannot go on in the same old way. UNISON's Residential Care Charter can raise standards, and help recruit and retain care workers. Older people in Scotland  deserve better.

Tuesday, 24 October 2017

Why I am voting for Richard Leonard

Scottish Labour needs an authentic voice as its new Leader, that's why I am supporting Richard Leonard.

Unless you have been hibernating, you will have noticed that the voters have moved on from triangulation politics, where leaders follow the latest focus group and chase cheap headlines. Slick presentation and a few sound bites just doesn't hack it any more. As Jeremy Corbyn showed in the recent election, there is a real appetite for change that people can believe in. Articulated by leaders who can demonstrate their credibility through their record.

I have known Richard Leonard for many years and count him as a comrade and a friend. Throughout those years he has developed new ideas, even changed his mind, but never his underlying socialist principles. Richard often quotes from our history, not to literally apply the policies of the past, but to remind us that we stand on the shoulders of giants whose values are just as relevant today.

This shines through in the policy rich platform he has developed in this campaign. On industrial policy, workers rights, poverty, public ownership and many more, these are the issues that matter, articulated by a person who has the credibility that consistency brings. Richard understands that it's inequality that is at the root of Scotland's ills and his track record shows he has campaigned on these issues all of his working life.

The arguments in favour of Anas are sadly remarkably similar to those made for Jim Murphy -  often by the same people. His policy announcements lack a consistent theme and are rarely original. This grasping at populism is exactly what led to Jim Murphy's alcohol at football matches debacle, which epitomised that disastrous election campaign.

Unlike Jim, few people actively dislike Anas, always a plus in a politician! He has come some way in recent years from his time in the Progress faction and I have always found him open to new approaches. When he gets things wrong, it's often because of inexperience, or because he hasn't quite thought through his underlying beliefs. When Richard hasn't had the time to weigh up the pro's and con's of an argument, he call fall back on a well developed set of principles. Many years as a union negotiator teaches you a bit about strategy, persuasion and thinking on your feet.

There has been a lot of media froth in this campaign. No one can choose their birth circumstances and Anas has every right to be proud of his family. As a living wage campaigner, all I expect from sympathetic company directors is that they make the case in the firm for fair work principles. If Anas did that, then that's fine by me. 

What did surprised me is how unprepared Anas's campaign was in responding to these very predictable attacks. All the basic rules of media management were forgotten in the partial, faltering responses. Failing to apply for living wage accreditation, when Labour was championing this cause, was really sloppy.

Decisions you make in your adult life do have political consequences. I'm afraid sending your child to a private school makes it very difficult to articulate Labour's inclusive education policy and inequality in general. The SNP at least claims that this is their number one priority, so it will be a real challenge for Anas at FMQ and elsewhere. I haven't yet heard from him how it plans to address this challenge.

It has been argued that Richard's support for Jeremy Corbyn will return Scottish Labour to the 'branch office' days. This is particularly rich coming from the right wing establishment that resisted every effort to democratise the party in Scotland. In contrast, Richard was part of those campaigns, always championing democracy over stage managed politics. 

Richard supported Jeremy, not out of factional interest, but because he understood that Labour had to change. More of the same old New Labour fudging and nudging wasn't going to work - the voters had moved on. At the very time the Tories were on the ropes after the referendum, the Labour coup plotters gave them a lifeline. Richard stood by the members choice, Anas joined the coup. 

Electing Richard as Leader will build on the progress we made at the general election because, like our new MPs supporting him, he knows the strengths Jeremy brings to our campaigns. But Richard is no starry eyed Corbynista, he will always stand up for the Scottish Labour Party when we decide to adopt a different approach.

The lazy outsider may well view this leadership campaign as a typical left v right Labour tussle. However, it's actually more complex than that. Richard has demonstrated, in the overwhelming number of nominations he has gained from both CLPs and affiliates, that he can reach out across the party - and he can do the same with the electorate. 

That's because people are looking for an authentic leader with a consistent track record. Richard embodies the principles that Scottish Labour stands for. Someone who has walked the talk and has a message of real change. That's why I will be voting for Richard Leonard.

Friday, 20 October 2017

100 public service workers assaulted every day in Scotland

42,400 recorded incidents of violence towards public sector workers in Scotland last year is a shocking figure – over 100 incidents every day. What's even more shocking is that this is just the tip of the iceberg with huge levels of under reporting.

I was at UNISON Scotland's annual safety conference in Stirling today, presenting the findings of our annual survey on violence at work. We ask employers for the total number of assaults which have been reported in the latest year for which they have information. The aggregated returns for 2017 show 42,421 assaults - an increase of 1,255 compared with 41,166 in our 2016 survey.

Local Government assaults have risen to 22,006 - an increase of 4,401 over the previous total 17,605. In Health Boards there has been an increase of 2,054 from 17,116 in 2016 to 19,170 in the 2017 survey.

Our first survey of public sector employers in 2006 reported just over 20,000 violent incidents in the NHS and local government - so the total had already more than doubled in the decade to last year - and it continues to increase. This increase is partially due to greater awareness and better reporting, but we still have significant under reporting.

Astonishingly, the two services that consistently fail to provide proper data is police and fire. They don't have proper systems and therefore can't easily produce data. If you are not monitoring violence, you can't be doing anything about it.

A big concern articulated by safety representatives today, is the failure to record incidents. Sometimes that's because members are reluctant to report incidents involving cared for persons. In other cases managers are not recording incidents, a particular problem in schools. The absence of near miss reports is particularly telling.

The numbers also show inconsistencies between similar employers that can only be explained by inadequate systems or management culture. There is a particular problem with education and social care. In education, it's more about culture. In social care it's also about lone working and the absence of work bases for staff. There is a real concern that so called 'agile working' is adding to the problem.

While the statutory sector has made significant progress in recent years, the same is not true of the voluntary sector where you all too often hear the refrain, 'it's just part of the job'.  We have therefore recently published an action toolkit called ‘Not Part of the Job’ to help community and voluntary sector employers who want to address this issue. There are some deep seated attitudes in the sector at a senior level, which will take some time to tackle.

One of the reasons we do an annual survey is to raise awareness on this issue, but that is only part of the solution. The next stage is to put adequate reporting and monitoring systems in place. There has been good progress on systems, with a growth in on-line processes that make it easier to analyse data, although there are challenges for some groups of staff. Finally, employers should be introducing measures to minimise the risk of violence, including better training.

In addition to the common law we have the Emergency Workers (S) Act that gives some additional legal protection for a limited group of workers. A Labour MP is introducing similar legislation at Westminster for England and Wales. Useful though this legislation is, typically 300 convictions a year in Scotland, it has limited scope. Most victims of violence are not covered by this legislation and the Crown Office has very limited data on how they use the common law to protect workers.

The massive scale of the problem of violence against public sector workers, including those in the community and voluntary sector, has slowly begun to emerge over the last decade. It is now time for action by employers and stronger legislation, regulation and oversight by government to end the epidemic.