QSD on Water Cannon 12th Feb 2014
My Lords, I’m very grateful to have secured this debate on the licensing of water cannon for London or perhaps the whole of mainland Britain, we don’t know yet.
I, and many others, have a lot of concerns about the use of water cannon. It’s important to recognise it’s not just a London issue, it’s also of national importance, as it could have an impact on many people UKwide.
Boris Johnson, as the notional Police and Crime Commissioner for London, is running an ‘engagement’ with Londoners about water cannon, explaining why they are necessary, but his office has made clear that the response won’t change the outcome, that is, the Met has asked for them, so the Met should have them.
In a recent letter, the Home Secretary appears to be under the impression that there is a proper consultation with Londoners, but there most definitely isn’t. I wouldn’t want the Government or your Lordships misled on that.
I’m going to talk about 3 things, cost, use, and potential targets.
Cost:
This is not much of an issue in that the Met budget, although reduced, is still £3¼ bn. I’ve been told that the Met hopes to buy secondhand from Germany, at a cost of only £35k each, a total of around £100k, expecting them to last 2-3 years. New machines cost around £1m each.
Although then there’s the training, which has to be ongoing, plus storage in Central London, plus maintenance.
However, the Met recently had to be coerced into finding £100k to continue the work of the Wildlife Crime Unit, which fights international organised crime networks who traffic endangered animals, or parts of endangered animals.
Your Lordships may know that today the UK is hosting a two day international conference on the illegal wildlife trade involving two future kings of our country and world leaders from fifty nations, invited by the prime minister.
Yet the Met police have a team of five going up against an illegal trade estimated to be worth $19billion a year.
If there’s some spare cash in the Met budget, why is it prioritising a weapon they will hardly ever use, over a global economic crime with links to trafficking of drugs, people and even to terrorism. Not to mention threatening some of the planet’s most iconic animals with extinction.
I bet that a lot of people would rather it was spent there, than on water cannon or even on another priority.
Use: What are their tactical potential and their tactical limitations?
Hugh Orde, President of ACPO, one of only two officers to have deployed water cannon, says:
“Water cannon could act as an effective deterrent to stop protests gaining momentum. What it does, is buy you space, it keeps people apart, and people at distance."
But is that what London needs? In Northern Ireland, there was disputed territory, which two or more groups wanted possession of, to march in. That simply isn’t true of London.
The sort of disorder that has happened in the last few years is often by small groups of people, moving quickly, staying in touch by mobiles and social media, and water cannon would be useless, as the police have admitted themselves.
These machines are slow, and not very maneuverable within our mostly narrow streets. They are heavy and take some stopping. They need wide roads or spaces.
There is a civil liberties concern. My fear is that innocent people will be affected, if not by being hosed down with water at a few degrees above freezing, then perhaps by being deterred from protesting at all? Water cannon could stifle attendance at legitimate democratic protests, which the Met has a duty to protect.
Plus, please don’t listen to anyone saying that they aren’t dangerous. In just one famous example, in 2010, pensioner Dietrich Wagner was permanently blinded by a water cannon in Germany. He was part of a protest trying to stop developers from cutting down some trees.
As well as suffering major bruising, Wagner's eyelids were torn, and on one side, part of his orbital bone – which encases the eye – was fractured.
He hopes to be here in London next week, to speak out on the use of water cannon.
So when would water cannon be used? Who would be the targets?
We’ve been hearing that water cannon would be ‘rarely seen and rarely used’.
When asked exactly when they would be used, the answers are NOT against peaceful protesters, obviously, NOT for small scale violent rioting in narrow places.
They would be for “people throwing petrol bombs”, who would obviously not hide themselves in large crowds of peaceful protesters.
The Met have claimed that water cannon could have saved the Reeves Furniture Store in Croydon, but that night there were fires in Clapham, Enfield and Peckham, plus rioting in a total of 22 boroughs.
One set of 3 water cannon vehicles and crews could have been deployed to one of the fires and may have got there in time to be useful, but how would the Met Police have used that set to do more than one? It seems unlikely in travelling time alone, let alone coordinating with local police command and fire brigade on what their exact needs are.
There’s quite a lot of opposition to water cannon, not all from the usual suspects. Of course, from organisations like Liberty.
But also from senior police officers. Five of the six largest forces in England and Wales said they were against deploying water cannon on their streets, and one Police and Crime Commissioner dismissed them as "as much use as a chocolate teapot" for quelling disorder.”
The noble Lord, Lord Blair, former Met Commissioner, wrote to me saying:
“Since I left office, I have deliberately not commented on matters which are for decision by my successors but in this case I am prepared to do so.
Water cannon have proved useful in Northern Ireland to keep two identifiable and violent factions apart or to protect public buildings or particular community enclaves from sectarian attack.
In my opinion, much more explanation needs to be given as to how they would be of use in public order situations including violent and non-violent participants or in deterring very mobile rioters carrying out widely dispersed attacks as in the 2011 riots.
I am not suggesting a case cannot be made: but I do not believe it has been so far.”
The Government will probably say that this is an operational issue, therefore they have to listen to police advice.
I know that it’s hard for a party in government or in expectation of being in government to appear to look soft on law and order. And it’s true that deploying these weapons will be an operational decision.
But licensing them is most definitely a political decision and doing a Pontius Pilate is really not good enough.
Finally:
Oh the irony, of the Met police justifying the purchase because of the 2011 riots, when it was Met actions that triggered the disorder.
If the Met hadn’t shot an unarmed man, if they had treated the Duggan family with more respect and professionalism, those riots may never have been sparked. The grumbling discontent of poverty and hardship may never have broken the surface in London and other parts of Britain.
But the Met did shoot an unarmed man. The Met didn’t treat the Duggan family well. And the rest is history, but water cannon would probably not have helped in any way.
We’re told the Met want water cannon ‘by the summer’, yet they admit they have no intelligence about possible disturbances.
The case has not been made to any of us and the public must be convinced. I urge Her Majesty’s government to pause before licensing water cannon for anywhere on the British mainland.