The introduction of spit hoods by police forces is highly controversial. Police officers are rightly concerned for their own safety and their personal dignity. But many civil liberties groups argue strongly that the spit hoods are unnecessary and a breach of civil liberties. They also argue that the spit hoods themselves are potentially dangerous.

From personal experience it is clear that the expression of any view on this issue generates strong disagreement. When police officers express a view, they tend to be strongly in favour. There is clearly a demand for their use. Many police forces have already adopted them, and the Metropolitan Police has begun a trial of them. The argument that no-one should be spat at as an everyday occurrence in their job must surely be right.

Yet many civil liberties organisations argue that the mesh bags placed over a person’s head constitute a primitive form of punishment, which frequently leads to anguish or anger, and can therefore exacerbate an already dangerous situation. The incoming head of Liberty has argued that their use in the UK has until recently been limited to a handful of smaller forces, but in the US where their use has been more widespread spit hoods have been associated with deaths in custody.

It is unfortunately true that a minority of the public can sometimes behave in a way that is wholly unacceptable to the police, and to other key public servants, such as hospital staff and ambulance crews. Violence, threats, abuse and spitting are all a breach of trust between the public and the public servants. Any decent member of society would be appalled and Labour naturally opposes all such behaviour. Safety must be paramount.

The question for policy makers is what to do in these cases. Policy must always be evidence-based, otherwise it will simply create greater problems. In this case what is required is some hard evidence on the incidence of spitting. In particular, police officers make the point that they run the risk of serious communicable diseases from spitting. Evidence of this would greatly strengthen their case.

At the same time, data should be made available on the use of spit hoods in this country and in others where they are used regarding complaints, and of course any evidence of fatalities must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It is important too, to note who has spit hoods applied, whether this disproportionately affects the mentally ill, and whether specific communities are more likely to be targeted. There are distressing reports of their use on children.

The evidence should be carefully weighed. But policy also needs to be carefully formulated. There is one suggestion that police officers, who have to deal with all sorts of harrowing incidents, should be routinely vaccinated against key diseases. It is alarming that this is already not the case for all front-line police officers, especially as it is customary for most medical staff.

Policing by consent means that, just as the police have a duty to protect us, we must also protect the police. The safety of police officers must be a priority. They should be able to carry out their jobs without fear.

Labour is prepared to go where the evidence takes us. Unlike the Tories, who have undermined policing and police safety with ferocious cuts, we will not stint on the resources required to give the public and the police the protection they deserve.

Diane Abbott is shadow home secretary and MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.