This weekend, the Telegraph published a letter from members of parliament, peers, campaigners and union leaders opposing the Metropolitan police and mayor’s call for the authorisation of water cannon use. Irritatingly, the letter was signed by some people who have opposed almost any developments of police capability ever, but there were plenty of others who are more sensible and could legitimately support the case that water cannon are anathema to the British style of policing. In my view, they are right and, furthermore, I worry about why this demand is surfacing now.
The request is being made to Theresa May, the home secretary as she needs to give high-level authorisation – not to any deployment or use, but to the principle of water cannon use. She has previously argued that their use does not chime with a British ‘policing by consent’ model. Presumably this is because that is what the police themselves told her – it is certainly what they told me when the issue was raised during my time as home secretary. So what has changed?
The demand for water cannon has emerged from the review of public order policing following the riots in the summer of 2011. This is strange, as the review itself has suggested that water cannon would not be suitable for use where the disturbance was ‘fast and agile’. But this is precisely the type of disturbance that was at the heart of the 2011 riots. The widely accepted reason for those disturbances getting out of hand was a failure by the police to deploy officers quickly enough. Having water cannon sitting in some warehouse in London would not have solved that problem.
The briefing produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers suggests that in recent years, events where water cannon may have been appropriate are the Countryside Alliance protest in 2004, the Gaza demonstrations against the Israeli embassy in 2008-9 (although I have no recollection that they said that at the time) and ‘possibly’ the student protests of 2010. I find it hard to accept that these examples justify a profound shift in public order policing.
The briefing also suggests that the risk of public disorder is growing as ‘a range of social, economic and cultural issues when combined with a significant and, often, spontaneous “trigger” event have the potential to lead to the outbreak of significant disturbances’. We have got a bloody awful government doing a range of damaging things, but I do not sense any growing appetite to take to the streets at the moment.
Perhaps more significant is the fear of chief constables that the next time they face a major public order incident there may be fewer officers to deploy. A fear of cuts leading to a demand for more equipment to keep peace on our streets really would be a fundamental move away from British policing.
Despite recent, legitimate concerns about confidence in the police, we are still very lucky to have policing based largely on consent and partnership in mainland Britain. I can remember being tear-gassed in France as an innocent bystander to what looked like a pretty routine arrest. We look across the Channel with concern at the tactics routinely employed by French police in public order situations. That is not an example I would choose to follow.
The mayor and police chiefs claim that the use of water cannon has significant public support. It is certainly the case that polls of the public in London appear to support this. However, a city badly let down by police tactics in the last major public disorder may see this as a necessary evil to protect them next time. This is one occasion when public support is not enough to justify a change. This is a test for the leadership of police and crime commissioners across the country. Several have already expressed misgivings, although I was amazed to see that the ACPO briefing suggests that as an ‘operational’ decision this is not a subject that PCCs have control over. If PCCs cannot influence a key strategic shift in public order policing it seems hard to see the point of them.
I have enormous sympathy with the challenges faced by our police and a record of supporting them in gaining new powers and capability as home secretary. However, in this case I think they are wrong. The most powerful tool they possess is the partnership with communities and the British people. In putting that at risk they face weakening, not strengthening, their ability to keep us safe and to keep order on the streets.
———————————
Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62
———————————
Photo: Eric Hossinger