§ 58. Sir S. McAddenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the repeated and growing incidence of disorderly scenes in the streets of London, whether he will now reconsider his decision to allow mass demonstrations to continue to take place; and whether he will take steps to restrict these demonstrations to open spaces such as Hyde Park.
§ 60. Sir E. Bullusasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now take steps to ban public marches which are likely to lead to acts of violence and to confine demonstrations to convenient open spaces.
§ Mr. CallaghanI shall continue to keep all these matters under review in consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but at present it is not necessary to ban or restrict demonstrations.
§ 61. Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in view of the published intention of the Zimbabwe Solidarity Committee to break and enter premises, the march 159W by this organisation in London on Sunday, 12th January was permitted and also given police protection.
§ Mr. CallaghanThe presence of the police was not only to give protection but to control the procession and deal with any breach of the peace. It was not thought necessary to prohibit the procession.
§ 62. Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total cost on the Home Office Vote arising out of measures taken in regard to the demonstrations in London on Sunday, 12th January, 1969.
§ Mr. CallaghanNo costs fell on the Home Office Vote. The additional cost of arrangements made by the Metropolitan Police, on which grant is paid from the Police Vote, is estimated at a maximum of £5,500 on the assumption that no man will take time off in lieu of payment.