HC Deb 12 May 2000 vol 349 cc1185-90

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. The use of the gas is governed by common law provisions in respect of self defence and by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which refers to such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. Any police officer's decision to use this equipment has to be judged according to the particular circumstances at the time of use. However, the use of excessive force is not sanctioned.

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 he 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. I turn to the specific problems posed to those who suffer a mental illness, and I am grateful for the assistance of the charity MIND which has reminded me that it first became concerned about CS spray as early as 1996 after the death of Ibrahima Sey. Mr. Sey, as the House will remember, was sprayed with CS while he was handcuffed and on his knees, and he died soon afterwards. For the record, I should say that a jury found that he died of restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, but the coroner stressed the urgent need for more research and particularly questioned the wisdom of using CS spray in cases of excited delirium.

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. There are extra dangers in that there is still no scientific assurance that CS spray and its components do not have side-effects when used on people who are taking prescribed psychotropic and neuroleptic drugs. Although some mentally ill people are among the 18 per cent. of subjects on whom CS spray does not have a completely disabling effect, for other sufferers the effects may be heightened. The PCA report speaks of this as uncharted territory, where the risk is not fully known. It seems, therefore, that this equipment is being used on our subjects regularly and, on occasions, inappropriately. Even in places as quiet and law abiding as my constituency, two incidents involving the use of CS spray have been brought to my attention. In the first, the spray was used on a 13-year-old, and in the second, my constituent, Mr. A, was sprayed with his arms behind his back and while surrounded by five officers.

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. Many may feel, as did my constituents, that the trauma of the legal process would only exacerbate the horror of one's child being dosed with CS spray.

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.

2.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) for raising a very important issue that needs to be properly discussed in the House.

Police officers all too often encounter violence and aggression as part of their everyday work: in pursuing suspects, making arrests, or dealing with incidents of disorder which make up their everyday duties. It is clearly right that, in dealing with problems of crime and disorder on behalf of us all, police officers have available to them the best possible means of protection—both for themselves and members of the public. Together with physical means of protection, police officers must have the necessary training and skills to defend themselves effectively.

Whenever assaults on police officers occur, there is serious concern. That was so particularly a few years ago, during a period when the use of knives had become prevalent. Clearly that concern has not gone away. Police officers must be vigilant about the possibility of assault in the course of their duties.

Since the introduction of CS spray in 1996, the number of assaults on police has fallen in most areas of the country, from a total of 15,488 in 1996–97, to 12,569 in 1998–99. That is still too many assaults, but at least the number is on the way down. To some extent it is arguable that the availability of effective self-defence weapons, such as the spray, have contributed to that.

CS spray is a hand-held incapacitant device which helps police deal with difficult arrests or other violent situations. Like all use of force by the police, the use of CS must be within the law, which allows reasonable force to be used for the prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders.

In considering the use of CS spray, we must also bear in mind the other means of restraint available to the police in dealing with violent situations: physical restraint by officers and the use of batons and firearms. There is always an element of risk to the suspect in the use of any kind of weapon or physical force.

CS is a sensory irritant and incapacitates by causing irritation to the eyes and nose of the person sprayed. It causes the eyes and nose to run, coughing and sneezing, discomfort, disorientation and a degree of pain. An individual who is sprayed may need to catch their breath, and in some cases a burning sensation may be felt on the skin.

In CS spray, CS is combined with the solvent MIBK which is in common industrial use. We know that MIBK can cause a dryness or reddening of the skin, or dermatitis, but there is no evidence of any long-term adverse effects on health from either CS or MIBK. Where injuries do occur, they normally clear up in a few days.

Before CS was introduced on a pilot basis in 1996, careful consideration was given to the range of scientific evidence on CS that was available. At that time, I advised the Police Federation of England and Wales. I urged the then Government to allow the police to use CS spray and supported their decision to allow it, as did the then Labour Opposition. Since that time, there have been two further reports on CS. One was a review by the independent expert Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT—which is sponsored by the Department of Health. The committee reported at the end of last year; it specifically noted that there were no concerns about possible cancer-causing, genetic or reproductive effects of CS. On the basis of that report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concluded that there were no serious health concerns that would prevent the police service from continuing to use CS spray as an incapacitant.

The report made two important points that the Government fully accept. First, as my hon. Friend says, the committee noted that there is a lack of information on the long-term effects of the combination of CS and MIBK used in the current police spray. In accordance with the committee's recommendation, work is being done with the Department of Health to carry out follow-up studies of persons sprayed with CS. Secondly, it noted that certain groups may be particularly vulnerable to the use of CS spray—for example asthma sufferers, for whom an attack may be triggered by any environmental irritant; and the mentally ill, especially those using certain drugs. The effects of CS on those drugs are not well researched, but we hope that the planned follow-up studies will give us further information about the possible effects on those groups.

The second report came from the Police Complaints Authority and was published in April this year. It was based on an analysis of the complaints about the use of CS spray that the authority had received during the previous twelve months. It is important to note that the PCA report states that no permanent injuries and no deaths have resulted from the use of CS. Secondly, a relatively small proportion of the complaints were substantiated—about 10 per cent. of 135 complaints received in the year. Thirdly, the report fully supported current Association of Chief Police Officers operational guidelines on the use of CS spray, noting that complaints were more likely to arise when officers used the spray outside proper guidelines.

Both ACPO and the Government fully accept the need for CS spray to be used within both the legal framework and the operational guidelines. The guidelines already draw attention to dealing with suspects who may be mentally disordered, and call for a sensitive response in such cases; indeed, the Royal College of Psychiatrists was consulted about the current version of the guidelines. However, it is not always easily apparent to an officer on the street whether a suspect's aggression arises from a mental disorder.

ACPO guidelines on the use of force emphasise the need for a graded and appropriate response when dealing with situations of conflict and aggression. Both in guidance and in training, officers are encouraged to deal with problems verbally wherever possible, turning to the use of force only when and if it becomes necessary. That is a matter for the independent judgment of officers dealing with particular situations.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of the use of CS on young people. Current guidelines place no specific restriction on the use of CS in respect of young people, but the "reasonable force" factor is clearly important: a well built and aggressive youth may present a genuine threat to a police officer or member of the public. An officer might judge that the use of CS is the most appropriate means of restraining or detaining such a youth, but that it is less appropriate in respect of a younger person who is more easily restrained.

ACPO guidelines also address the question of the mentally ill and make it clear that, if a person's violent behaviour is due to mental illness, mental health professionals should, where possible, be consulted about options for any use of force. However, that is not always possible. It is also suggested that friends and family be consulted wherever possible, if the use of CS spray is being considered. Again, in certain circumstances, desirable as such consultation might be, it is not always possible for an officer to do that.

There will be occasions where it is not clear that a person's aggressive or violent behaviour arises from mental illness, or where the use of CS is nevertheless necessary, even though it is known that the person is mentally ill. The decision to use the spray must rest with the officer concerned, taking account of all the circumstances. Both Ministers and ACPO have stressed the need for CS to be used only within the operational guidelines.

Much has been said about the cases in which people have died following incidents in which CS spray was used, but as the PCA report makes clear, there is no evidence to link the use of CS with the cause of death in any of those cases. Indeed in France, where CS has been in use for some 14 years, no death has ever been attributed to CS spray.

It is clearly right that when the use of force is necessary, police officers should have a number of options available to defend themselves and members of the public. CS spray provides one option to incapacitate and possibly disarm an assailant without causing lasting damage. It must be compared with the damage that can be caused by physical restraint and the use of batons. It is right that the police service should have this protection available to them, and the Government continue to support its use.

We want our police officers to have the protection and the ability to defend themselves and members of the public. We want to provide them with the back-up that they need. We want to ensure that if they feel that it is necessary to protect themselves through the use of CS spray within the guidelines, they will have the support of Ministers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.