Home Affairs Correspondent
CS GAS sprays are to be tested by police officers in one and possibly two inner-city areas of Strathclyde for a six-month period from October.
The decision reflects a deg-ree of misgiving on the part of the eight Scottish chief constables with the tests carried out by a number of English police forces. A strong feeling has emerged that Scotland's perceived special relationship between police and public should be taken into account.
After the English tests were assessed by the Home Office, the go-ahead was given in August last year for CS sprays to be issued to all officers in England, and the Scottish Office followed suit. The sprays were successful in reducing assaults on officers.
Individual Scottish police chiefs could, in theory, issue sprays to officers at the moment as the Scottish Office says it is an operational matter. The chief constables have decided instead to act together through Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) to form their own judgment.
Chief Constable John Orr of Strathclyde told The Herald: ''There is continuing difficulty about the safety of these products. The results of the English trials have been studied very closely by the Scottish chief constables, and we are acting prudently. We must do nothing to damage the degree of public confidence which we as a force enjoy in Scotland. The public perception is paramount, as we do enjoy overwhelming public support. As an individual policing 2.4m people, I have to be satisfied that the unique Scottish approach to policing and legal issues is not at risk.''
A major issue facing Mr Orr and the other Scottish forces is the cost of training. Police budgets are already pared to the bone.
Strathclyde Police will have to go to their joint board to finance the trials but the ultimate cost of equipping every Scottish operational officer will fall to the Scottish Office. The training will be crucial as officers will have to follow strict guidelines on the deployment of gas canister.
The English trials involved 16 areas and more than 3800 front-line officers before ACPO's Self-defence and Restraint committee approved. The 90% success rate surprised
the committee and far exceeded expectations.
During the five-month trial, the spray was used 582 times and was drawn but not used on 350 occasions. One chief officer said that the front-line officers used it more often than batons.
Mr Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, said at that time he would give his backing to any chief officer who wished to issue the sprays to police on the beat. He claimed that all the scientific evidence indicated that ''CS presented no serious risk to health''.
The officer fronting the ACPO committee, Chief Constable Tony Burden of Gwent, dismissed concerns about the strength of the CS used in England - five times stronger than US sprays - saying the trials indicated it was not causing the injuries some people feared.
Three English officers are, however, suing their forces over injuries they allege they suffered during spray training and two forceswithdrew from the trials over safety fears. The Surrey force is working on the development of its own, weaker spray, using a different chemical carrying agent. Its view is that insufficient res-earch has been carried out leaving a doubt over alleged mutagens as a health hazard.
Surrey Police believe that what is required is a spray as a distractant, causing the suspect or attacker around 20 seconds of eye discomfort.
The English chief officers accepted that the sprays might not be 100% safe before trials began but that was balanced against an estimated 19,000 assaults on officers a year.
In Scotland the number of assaults on officers is actually falling, but the Government's working party which examined protection from assault for emergency services personnel stated that safe CS sprays would be welcomed as a means of ending violent incidents quickly and safely and of increasing the confidence of police officers. the committee and far exceeded expectations.
During the five-month trial, the spray was used 582 times and was drawn but not used on 350 occasions. One chief officer said that the front-line officers saw CS as a de-escalation-escalation of force when the effects of using a baton might be more severe. They used it more often than batons, indicating their confidence in the sprays.
Mr Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, said at that time he would give his backing to any chief officer who wished to issue the sprays to police on the beat. He claimed that all the scientific evidence indicated that ''CS presented no serious risk to health''.
The officer fronting the ACPO committee, Chief Constable Tony Burden of Gwent, dismissed concerns about the strength of the CS used in England - five times stronger than US sprays - saying the trials indicated it was not causing the injuries some people feared it would.
Three English officers are, however, suing their forces over injuries they allege they suffered during spray training and two forces, Surrey and Hertfordshire, withdrew from the trials over safety fears. The officer in charge of research at Surrey stated then that tests on the chemical agent carrying the CS in the French product which has been used in the English trials could not rule out all possibility of harm to an unborn foetus.
The force is working on the development of its own, weaker spray, using a different chemical carrying agent. Their view is that insufficient research has been carried out leaving a doubt over alleged mutagens as a health hazard to the public, particularly women, and to female operators.
Surrey Police believe that what is required is a spray as a distractant, causing the suspect or attacker around 20 seconds of eye discomfort - sufficient to allow the officer to arrest him - rather than a more powerful incapacitant. The English chief officers accepted that the sprays might not be 100% safe before trials began but that was balanced against an estimated 19,000 assaults on officers a year and a number of officers killed on duty.
In Scotland the number of assaults on officers is actually falling but the Government's working party which examined protection from assault for emergency services personnel stated that safe CS sprays would be welcomed as a means of ending violent incidents quickly and safely and of increasing the confidence of police officers in ending such incidents.
Fed quote to come.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article