Police (Hansard, 29 November 1988)

§ Mr. Hurd

I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the National Union of 175W Students organised the marches which took place last Thursday in protest against the Government's proposals for student loans. The NUS had agreed the routes with the police beforehand.

The main march was due to follow a route from Malet street to Geraldine Mary Harmsworth park via Waterloo bridge. On the day, up to 17,000 people took part in this march. On crossing Waterloo bridge at about 1.20 pm a group of approximately 1,000 demonstrators, who were outside the control of NUS stewards, broke through a police cordon and proceeded along York road. This was not part of the agreed route.

The action of those marchers, who are believed in the main to have comprised members of the Socialist Workers party, encouraged several thousand others to follow suit. This body of demonstrators went to the south side of Westminster bridge, where their way was barred by police so that the Sessional Order of the House, which requires the Commissioner to keep the streets leading to the Palace of Westminster free for Members, was not breached.

For about two and half hours the police on the south side of Westminster Bridge came under intense pressure from large numbers of demonstrators who tried to break through. Missiles, including placard poles, cans, bottles and coins, were thrown at the police. A number of officers were injured by the missiles and by the efforts of the demonstrators to break through the police line. NUS stewards and the police made loudhailer requests to the demonstrators to return to the march and rally, but with no effect.

Just before 4 pm, after warnings had been given, mounted officers were deployed to disperse the crowd. I understand that this was a controlled action in which foot officers were also involved and that it was not a charge. I further understand that truncheons were neither drawn nor used. Throughout the afternoon police also had to deal with significant numbers of demonstrators at other locations; for example, at about 3.25 pm a group of demonstrators was dispersed along Victoria embankment towards Richmond terrace.

During the afternoon there were some 72 injuries to officers and five to horses. The police are aware that seven demonstrators were injured; 69 people were arrested and 50 charges have been brought, mainly for public order offences; 1,500 officers and over 70 vehicles were employed in the operations. The additional cost of policing was £27,462. I understand that a few complaints about the action of individual officers have been made. These are being investigated in accordance with the statutory procedures.

The NUS co-operated with the police both before and during the marches and the police made what arrangements they could to enable demonstrators to lobby Parliament in a way which did not breach the Sessional Order. I understand that some numbers did so. If the breakaway group had not left the march and had followed the prescribed route the disruption to traffic would not have been so great. Interruption to traffic flow is one of the factors which the police take into account when discussing with organisers the proposed route of a march. Where necessary the police can use powers in the Public Order Act 1986 formally to impose conditions on unco-operative organisers if they reasonably believe that the march would otherwise result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. It was not considered to be necessary in this 176W case because the NUS were believed to be co-operative and responsible. It was the determined violent action of a group which they were unable to control which led to the confrontation and disruption.