| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Remaining Private Members' Bills
RECYCLED CONTENTS OF NEWSPRINT BILL
To be considered on Friday 19 May.
MEDICAL TREATMENT (PREVENTION OF EUTHANASIA) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 April] on consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.
A new clause--Consent of the Director of Public Prosecution--
- ".--No prosecution under this Act shall be brought without the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."--[Mr. Dismore.]
Debate to be resumed on Friday 9 June.
PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.
SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21st July.
CONTROL OF HEDGEROWS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.
ZOO LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Education (Student Support)
- That the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 and the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) (NO. 2) BILL
- That, during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
CS Gas
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
2.32 pm
Mr. Mike Wood (Batley and Spen): I am grateful to have secured this debate to raise the issue of CS gas spray and its use by police forces in England and Wales. This is a complex and interesting matter, and, as always, I am indebted to the House Library for unfailing help and assistance in drawing together the relevant material.
After its use in Ireland for riot and crowd control, CS gas, as a spray, was introduced to England and Wales in 1996 after street trials. It is now routinely issued to police officers and in some cases to special constables in all but three of our police forces. In the minds of many police officers, the gas has apparently come to replace, rather than supplement, the baton. Indeed, CS spray is a chemical baton.
The purpose of the gas is to act as a less than lethal defence for officers, to deter and detain violent subjects who cannot otherwise be restrained. The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland--ACPO--refers to it as
- providing officers with a tactical advantage in a violent encounter.
- such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
The spray itself is administered from a hand-held canister in a liquid stream, which is directed by the officer at the face of the subject--ideally from between 8 and 14 ft. The stream is very accurate and many officers consider themselves to be much safer when so equipped. Some report that merely drawing the canister has a deterrent effect. However, it would appear that the spray is used at least 5,000 times a year. It is almost impossible to collate the figures, but the spray could be used many more times a year in this country. Use of the spray is not just threatened; canisters are drawn and used.
The spray is made up of a chemical, which has the usual unpronounceable name with 29 letters that I shall not attempt to pronounce. It is a crystalline solid within a solvent--methyl isobutyl ketone, known as MIBK--and is supplemented by a propellant, nitrogen. Incidentally, a chemical concentration of 5 per cent. is five times greater than thought necessary by law enforcement agencies in the United States of America; it is a very powerful spray.
The effect of the spray is to disorientate and incapacitate the person targeted. It does that by causing severe irritation to the skin and to the mucous membranes in the eyes, nose and mouth. The subject's eyes are forced shut and breathing is heavily constricted. A subject should be rendered incapable of continuing any attack within 20 seconds.
MIBK, which is present as the solvent, is an irritant in its own right. It has a significant drying effect on the skin and can cause peeling, redness, itching and burns. In most cases, those effects are the most adverse and, apparently,
the most long lasting. I say "apparently" because one of the implications of what I consider to be the improperly rushed introduction of this equipment in 1996 is that much needed research into the long-term effects of the spray, and especially of MIBK, have not even now been completed.MIBK must be safe, we are told, because it has been used by the French police for 20 years and, after all, we find traces of it in foodstuffs. On the other hand, it is also a constituent of paint and paint stripper. There are reports of extensive blistering, burning and damage to the face and eyes, not just of members of the public, but of the police themselves. For instance, one officer in training with CS spray received almost 50 per cent. burns to his eyes and some people have required hospital treatment for as long as three weeks after being sprayed.
In its recent report, "CS Spray--Increasing Public Safety?", the Police Complaints Authority acknowledges that work needs to continue to find alternatives to both the spray and to the solvent, but states that
- there is an urgent need for more research to be done on the existing spray in relation to those who may be vulnerable through drink or drugs but specifically those who may be mentally ill.
Since that time, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has set up a working group with the ACPO self-defence, arrest and restraint committee, which has led to improvements in the guidance on CS use. However, a survey by the Maudsley hospital in June 1998 found that 31 trusts reported that patients had been admitted while suffering from the effects of CS spray, and that 12 of those trusts had also had CS spray used on their premises. It appears that some officers use CS spray as a first resort and, inappropriately to control situations involving mentally ill people. Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, no less, said:
- Some officers forget that the best weapons they've got to deal with potential violence are their brains and the ability to talk.
- uncharted territory, where the risk is not fully known.
The guidance to the police does not proscribe the use of CS spray on children, but I assume that that is because the people who wrote it could not conceive of such use. Surely the use of the spray on children is unacceptable. Would the officer concerned have hit that seven-stone child with a baton or truncheon if CS spray had been unavailable? Mr. A, a disabled man, was sprayed in a situation of affray in a large crowded room and while under restraint--features that breach the guidance. He has made a formal complaint to the Police Complaints Authority.
I understand that in both cases the officers in question contend that their use of CS spray was justifiable and warranted. Regarding the incident involving the 13-year-old, the chief constable of West Yorkshire pointed out to me that
- that judgement can, of course, be tested in Court.
The police deserve the best protection that we can afford them. Incapacitant spray can be a part of that protection, but we need to consider making the following improvements if public support for its continued use is to be maintained. First, there must be renewed efforts to find a safer solvent than MIBK and less severe, but still effective, incapacitants, as suggested by the Police Complaints Authority.
Secondly, there must be better and more uniform police training. As we know from the PCA report, the more time and resources that are put into training, the fewer problems there are with the use of CS spray. There is a great disparity between the best and the worst-trained forces in that regard. Thirdly, we need better monitoring of the use of this equipment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that police forces will be required to use the ACPO standard report form so that full information can be held centrally.
Fourthly, additional information needs to be collated regarding the effect that the introduction of the spray has had on the number of assaults and violence to members of the public, as an anticipated reduction was used to justify its introduction. We do not know whether there has been a reduction. Fifthly, where there have been errors of judgment, mistakes or excesses by police officers in the use of CS spray, as is inevitable, we need more transparency and accountability so that lessons can be learned.
Police forces have a duty of care to their officers and the public. Sixthly, therefore, we need more research into the long-term effects of CS spray on health, such as lung function. There should be less use of the spray until the remaining health fears are allayed. There must be concern for police officers who, unlike the general public, may suffer long-term exposure to the substance. In one trial, 78 per cent. of officers were cross-contaminated. Seventhly, we have insufficient data on the chemicals' effects on people who are taking medication for mental health problems. That must be remedied.
In much of that, the Government could usefully be more proactive in their relations with individual police forces to ensure continued, uniform, national improvements in the use of what must be equipment of last resort.
In two areas, however, the Government should go even further. They should change the regulatory framework to ensure that, first, the use of CS spray is suspended when police officers are working under the Mental Health Act 1983, where the subject is known from police or medical records to be suffering a serious mental illness, or where it appears at the time of the incident that the person is in mental distress, such as the excited delirium suffered by the late Mr. Sey; and, secondly, the equipment, which is provided primarily to protect officers who are in fear of serious violence, is not used on children, as it was on at least one occasion in my constituency.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |