Publications on the internet
Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
Dr Hywel Francis (Chairman)
Mr Dominic Raab
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Aaron Porter [President of the National Union of Students] and Simon Hardy [Spokesperson for the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts].
Q1 The Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and this evidence session dealing with the human rights issues surrounding the policing of the recent demonstrations against the rise in student tuition fees and against education cuts in general. Before I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves, I invite my Committee to declare any interests.
Lord Bowness: I declare a slightly indirect interest in that I have a very close relative who is a member of the TSG in the Met.
The Chairman: Could the witnesses introduce themselves, please?
Aaron Porter: I am Aaron Porter and I am president of the National Union of Students.
Simon Hardy: My name is Simon Hardy. I am a member of the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts.
Q2 The Chairman: I thank you both for coming before us today at such short notice. Could I begin by asking both of you to give us a brief account, from your own perspectives, of how protests were policed on each of the recent demonstrations? In particular, could you identify examples of good and bad police practice and of good and bad student organising practice? Could Mr Porter begin, please?
Aaron Porter: Thanks very much, and thanks also for the opportunity to give evidence here this afternoon. The easiest way for me to proceed is to be clear about the fact that there have been four significant student protests, on 10 November, 24 November, 30 November and 9 December. If time permits, I will briefly outline the key points from each of those in turn.
The 10 November protest was organised jointly by the National Union of Students and the University and College Union. The key points to highlight here are largely around the way in which the numbers surpassed expectations for all of those in attendance. The NUS had been working closely with student unions to try and ascertain the numbers in attendance. Our intelligence had suggested that we were looking at between 17,000 and 20,000 people in attendance. Through that process we had worked closely with the police. We had met with them on a number of occasions to jointly agree the way in which the event was going to be stewarded and policed, and on the setting of the route. It is worth outlining that we had proposed several routes and the police agreed the final route for 10 November, which went past Millbank.
Clearly there is an issue with regard to getting an accurate assessment of the number of people likely to attend these marches. I think it’s fair to say that in a new age where social media largely dictate the way these events are advertised, the number of police in attendance on 10 November did not meet the number of people that we expected. It transpired that around 50,000 people attended on 10 November. The key issue here is around intelligence and how we can work together to ensure that we get more appropriate numbers.
Clearly, there were serious issues of violence that came to Millbank after the protest that we had organised on 10 November. Our stewards had been briefed and they met the requirements of that briefing, but there were suggestions that there were not sufficient numbers of police outside Millbank and perhaps there were question marks around intelligence and the appropriateness of identifying 30 Millbank as a possible flashpoint.
I will move on, with greater brevity, to 24 November, which was an action organised by the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts. It was not organised by the National Union of Students, although many of my members were in attendance. The issue where we have greatest concerns was the use of kettling by the police to constrain those in attendance. I believe that was an unnecessary use of force. I don’t believe it was conducive towards helping to manage a calm and peaceful protest. I do accept that, given the events of 10 November, the police would understandably have looked to change their tactics, but I believe that kettling was unnecessary. There are suggestions that there were also horse charges towards certain groups. I was not in attendance personally on 24 November, but I have had reports and it has been suggested to me by some students that there were instances of unprovoked police aggression. Clearly that is something that I would be keen for the Committee to pick up.
Briefly, on 30 November-another action organised by the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts-the biggest concern for us is to be clear about whether the route that was allegedly jointly agreed by the organisers and the police was stuck to. There were issues involving protesters appearing to run away from the police. It is important for us to understand what motivated that. I understand that if they were kettled on 24 November, they may have wanted to avoid being kettled again on 30 November.
Finally, on 9 December, two separate actions were organised. There was a lobby of Parliament and a vigil, organised by the National Union of Students and the University and College Union. That passed off without any incident and I am not aware of any arrests. There was a separate march organised by the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts, which went from the University of London union to Parliament Square, where protesters were kettled. Again, I restate my concerns that were evident on 24 November, but I have an additional concern around the intelligence from the police. Given that there had been three previous protests, what steps were taken to identify potential troublemakers? Clearly there were some people who had arrived on each of the protests intent on violence. What steps were taken to remove them to allow those who wanted to protest peacefully to do so?
I apologise for the length of my contribution, but I think it was important to break each of the four up and outline my key concerns with each.
Simon Hardy: Before I begin, I would like to draw to the Committee’s attention some comments that have allegedly been made by the police, or people who are using an unofficial police blog discussion forum in relation to some comments that I made at a press conference on 10 December. On a website called inspectorgadget, which provides a forum for police to discuss their operations and activities, someone posted a video of me at a press conference condemning the police violence against the demonstrators and making various political points about that. The forum then has a number of police-or people who may be police and were using an unofficial police forum-who proceed to make a series of comments about how they would like to hurt me by punching me repeatedly on the floor, stubbing flares out in my face and aiming for my eyes. All this seems to be connected to the fact that they disagree with some of the comments that I made about demonstrators having the right to defend themselves against what I see as illegal and unnecessary police violence. I wanted to bring that to your attention, because it is indicative of some of the problems that we face as protesters in the way that the police treat us and their attitude towards us. I would like to hear from other police in this room on what they think about those comments.
Quickly, I want to start off with a general concern that we have about policing in Britain today, because a lot of the discussions that are happening now, especially the discussions yesterday in Parliament about perhaps using water cannon or pre-emptive arrests of so-called ringleaders before demonstration-
Q3 The Chairman: Can I halt you at that point? Could you address the question that I asked you specifically rather than in general terms? It is about the four demonstrations. Time is against us.
Simon Hardy: The point I want to make is a brief one, about how and why there are problems with the policing of the demonstrations. I then wanted to draw that specifically to some of the issues. This is a political movement that has responded and emerged because of what is happening in Parliament and because of the way that people see the Government as illegitimate. People are being radicalised by the actions of the police and by the fact that the Government has basically said that it won’t listen to the demonstrators. If we get drawn into an argument that the only way we can deal with these demonstrations is through more hardline policing and violence, that is deeply problematic. I just wanted to draw that to the Committee’s attention.
As organisers of some of the demonstrations where there has been quite serious police violence against us, we have some criticisms. Number one, of course, is kettling, or, as the police call it, containment. We obviously have very serious concerns about that. I echo what Aaron Porter said. The excessive, cruel and unusual form of kettling that occurred on 24 November, which saw demonstrators, some of whom were very young, kept in freezing cold conditions on Whitehall until half past nine or ten o’clock, has radicalised people further within this movement. I have been at student organising meetings where we have discussed the 30 November and 9 December demonstrations. The overwhelming feeling from students who came to those meetings is that they did not want to be kettled. They were terrified of it. Therefore they are looking at ways of being able to demonstrate without being imprisoned on the streets by the police for hours on end.
Our second concern is about violence from the police. Numerous videos have already emerged and some eyewitness accounts. I have printed off some emails and newspaper reports that I am more than happy to quote to the Committee, which show the police batoning students without cause, punching students who had their hands in the air, kicking students who were on the floor and making horse charges. There were around 43 protesters taken to hospital on 9 December. One student, Alfie Meadows from Middlesex University, had to undergo a three-hour brain operation after having a stroke after being hit by a police truncheon. This is a very worrying way of dealing with student demonstrators.
There are two quick final things that we also have problems with. One is police covering up their numbers. Video has emerged from the 9 December demonstration of a female police officer in riot gear whose numbers were not on display. Denis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, told the Commons last April after the G20 that it was utterly unacceptable for officers not to be wearing their numbers, and yet this is still happening. The police also wear balaclavas even when there is no need to do so.
The final thing is lying. The police lied. One of the chief police officers said that there was no horse charge on 24 November. There was. Footage has emerged that there had been a horse charge against demonstrators. They lie when you’re in kettles. I have lots of evidence of students stuck in kettles who were told by police to go to the other end where they would be allowed to leave, and then they were not allowed to leave. Police told demonstrators a number of different things, and this creates a real sense of mistrust in the police, when they trap people in kettles for so long.
Q4 Lord Dubs: Can I turn specifically to some aspects of the kettling that went on? For the sake of brevity I am going to put some of my questions together. Could you say something about the children-that is to say, anybody under 18 who was there? What sort of communication was there between the police and those people who were being contained? Were there any individual requests to be released and how were they handled? What about water, toilets and medical assistance? Lastly, in the statement made to both Houses of Parliament yesterday in relation to 9 December, the Home Secretary said, "A cordon was placed around Parliament Square, but throughout those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so." Do you agree that they were able to, or not?
Aaron Porter: I should be clear that for 24 November I have to refer to accounts from students I have spoken to who went on the protest, because I was not present on 24 November. I have been told by a number of students who were on the protest that there were instances of aggression from the police to those clearly under the age of 18 and that there was no adequate provision-or indeed any provision-of water or toilet facilities specifically on 24 November. There were serious issues about the nature of the containment or kettling on 24 November.
My understanding is that on 9 December there were opportunities for people who wanted to remove themselves from containment and that was afforded. That would indicate that the Home Secretary’s statement was accurate.
Simon Hardy: On 24 November there was no provision for food. The police told the media that they were handing out water to people in the kettle. That wasn’t apparent to me. If they were handing out water, it was not widely known about by the people in the kettle. The police claim to have provided toilets for people. Again, that was not widely known. The toilets might have been there, but no one knew about them. The police weren’t communicating with us adequately. When the chief steward at that demonstration tried to talk to the commander in charge, he said that he was distinctly unhelpful and did not provide her with the information she was looking for.
On the 9 December demonstration, the kettle, which began around half past three, alternated between being total, meaning that no one could leave at any point, and various other kettles being formed where people could leave, but then they would end up in another containment area. I can draw the Committee’s attention to a report from the BBC News website under the headline "Caught up in Demo Violence". It is an interview with Rachel Bergan from Barnsley, who is 17 years old. She says that the police let her go out of one kettle. "According to Rachel, after begging in tears to be let out, she and her friends got through one police line but were then halted by another." She goes on to say, "We were traumatised at this point. We were crying. We'd been hit by police for just wanting to go home. We were begging to, please, just let us go home. They showed no mercy whatsoever… I managed to break away. [When the police came at us again] I was pushed into a ditch by a police officer and when I tried to get out of the ditch he pushed me back in. I turned around to see a group of my friends on the floor getting beaten by police officers." She described these friends as "17 year old slim girls" who were beaten with batons by police for trying to leave the kettle on 9 December.
Q5 Lord Dubs: My next question is about the use of horses. Could you say something about that? You have referred to them already, on 24 November and 9 December. Were they charging the crowd, or were they simply used to hold the crowd back?
Simon Hardy: On 24 November, I was stuck in the kettle. The horses were used slightly further up the road. I didn’t see it myself, but I heard people in the kettle saying that horses were being used. People were outraged. At this point another solidarity demonstration had emerged towards the Trafalgar Square end, with trade unionists and parents who had come down and were concerned about their children.
Horses were used. On the YouTube video that I saw, which was taken by a protester, the police moved at speed into the crowd. I stand to be corrected, but I gather that that is not standard procedure. On 9 December, the police again moved their horses at speed into the crowd to break up a mass of demonstrators and then followed it up by hitting people with shields and batons towards one of the exits from Parliament Square.
Q6 Lord Bowness: In connection with both 24 November and 9 December, can you tell us what communications you had with the police before the demonstrations? Did you know who your contact points were? Perhaps you could describe how you felt that dialogue worked.
Simon Hardy: On the 24 November demonstration, I am not aware of what communications were had with the police. I wasn’t involved in helping to organise that demonstration in terms of what happened in London. For 30 November, I went to Scotland Yard with another student organiser to arrange a route with the police from Trafalgar Square down to Parliament Square. The demonstration did not follow that route because, as the crowd was assembling at around 12 o’clock in Trafalgar Square, a line of police and vans blocked off Whitehall. The crowd reacted to that by beginning an impromptu and spontaneous demonstration that took off down The Mall and then ended up round Victoria and Hyde Park Corner and Tottenham Court Road. That was entirely in response to what had happened on 24 November. People were again terrified of kettling. They saw so many police and they assumed that that was going to happen. There were attempts to negotiate that route with the police in good faith on 30 November, but because of what happened on 24 November, things worked out differently.
On 9 December there were several negotiations with the police about the route of the march. It was requested that we should be able to have a rally in Parliament Square. The students felt that it was their democratic right to be outside Parliament as the tuition fee increase was being debated in the House of Commons. We were told that that would not be possible for various reasons, either because Parliament Square was too small for the numbers that the police expected or because the GLA, who I gather owns the patch of grass outside Parliament, was unwilling to remove the fences from the Green because the grass was still growing. This, of course, created a sense of anger from students that the GLA and apparently the police seemed to be prioritising regrowing the grass after the democracy village over the students’ democratic right to protest outside Parliament. That is why, when the demonstration got down to Parliament Square on 9 December, students didn’t want to carry on to Victoria Embankment, but instead wanted to stay where they were.
Q7 Mr Raab: I am interested in the ability to disseminate some of the information about the protests with those participating before and during. In relation to the demonstration on 24 November, we had reports of some groups of students running from one place to another. Was that a tactic, was it something that just happened within the context of the demonstration, is it something that you feel you have no control over? In relation to 9 December, I have a similar question. We talk about the kettling. I understand that that started with the build-up within Parliament Square . That itself, and the protesters remaining in Parliament Square and not moving on along the pre-agreed route, was one of the things that precipitated the problems, whoever’s fault they are. I wondered what your views were on the changing of tactics in the course of those two demonstrations and the extent to which that created problems for the police, as well as how you might address it in the future.
Aaron Porter: Specifically for the demonstrations on 30 November and 9 December, given the kettling on 24 November, there was significant anxiety that I have been made aware of from students that that would happen once again. A number of protesters certainly decided that they would try to avert that if they saw the police shaping up to create a containment once again. Clearly, I would be of the opinion that the organisers of a responsible student demonstration should try to be as clear as possible that it is vital that those on the protest should stick to an agreed route that has been set before. There is certainly a responsibility on the organisers to convey that message.
I can only speak as being part of the organisation that oversaw one of the actions on 9 December. We felt that we were clear that our protesters had stuck to the route that we had organised, although we were not part of the march that went from the University of London union down to Parliament Square.
In the age where students are largely picking up information about these protests through the internet, we should use information on the protests themselves to make sure that individuals are aware of what the route is and why they should be sticking to it.
Q8 Mr Raab: Mr Hardy, can I put the same points to you?
Simon Hardy: You are asking about the changing police tactics and how we disseminate information to the demonstration?
Mr Raab: For example, on 9 December, we have just talked about the kettling or containment in Parliament Square. That arose, at least chronologically, after the breakdown in the pre-agreed route, which was to move on towards the Embankment. I accept what you have said about the democratic right to protest outside Parliament, within limits, but this went further. The agreed route was breached. To what extent do you guys have responsibility for that practically, either at the outset or as the protest is proceeding?
Simon Hardy: We have to be absolutely clear that if the great majority of people on a demonstration want to do something, all the stewarding teams in the world will find it very difficult to stop them. That is effectively what happened on 9 December. The majority of students who turned up on that demonstration wanted to go to Parliament Square.
Q9 Mr Raab: Did you actively try to stop them or urge them to carry on to the Embankment along the agreed route?
Simon Hardy: In our capacity as stewards, what we could do was very limited. The National Campaign against Fees and Cuts and the other movements that have emerged have limited resources, although clearly the actions that we are calling have popular resonance. In a sense it is an abdication of duty on the part of larger organisations such as the National Union of Students to provide us with the resources and help that we need to facilitate those demonstrations. Unfortunately, the NUS chose not to back the demonstration from the University of London union down to Parliament Square, and instead focused on something on Victoria Embankment, which as far as I’m aware was much less popularly attended. Those are the issues that we have in trying to organise those demonstrations. I want to be absolutely clear that the reactions of the students since 24 November, particularly on the demonstrations on 30 November and 9 December, are a direct response and reaction to what the police did to us on 24 November.
Q10 Mr Raab: I think people will have greater understanding that in the heat of the moment certain students reacted to certain specific tactics, but to suggest that the disorder or violence on one protest is a legitimate response to actions by the police on a previous one sounds as though you were coming back for revenge. Can I ask you to clarify that point?
Simon Hardy: It is absolutely not revenge. If anyone was carrying out any kind of revenge, it was the police on 24 November, in revenge for what happened at Millbank.
Q11 Mr Raab: I am asking you about the attitude of the students in your movement.
Simon Hardy: The attitude of the students coming on 9 December was that they wanted to protest. They felt it was their right to go to Parliament Square. They knew that the police would be violent and had been violent on previous demonstrations. That is why students started to turn up, for instance, in hard hats. Some students even made shields in the shape of books to protect themselves from baton blows and riot police.
The Committee has to ask itself why. Students weren’t doing that at the initial demonstrations but they have started to do it at subsequent demonstrations. There is a cause and effect chain here. We have to understand and appreciate that it is a response to how people view what is happening in Parliament and how people view the actions of the police in particular on 24 November.
Q12 Mr Sharma: Everybody who saw the demonstration had mixed views. Do you take any form of responsibility for the disorder that took place? And what lessons have you learnt from 9 December to see that it is not repeated in future?
Simon Hardy: The responsibility lies with those people in power for the feelings of students and people who are organising these demonstrations. As far as I’m concerned, students have the right to demonstrate and to protest without fear and without having collective punishment imposed on them, which is what a kettle is; it is indiscriminate in who it traps in a particular area. They have the right not to be charged by horses or to be punched and kicked by men and women in uniform, who in the end have the full weight of the law behind them, whereas 14, 15 or 16-year-old students turning up on demonstrations have violence inflicted upon them by the police, and increasingly so. I gather from an article in the Telegraph today that the police want to have an even harder line on the student demonstrations in the future.
Our responsibility is to facilitate protest, to make sure that it happens and to defend demonstrations from police violence and media witch hunts. That is what people are concerned about today, because the response of British society and the establishment to these demonstrations has not been very conducive to dialogue.
Q13 Mr Raab: I wanted to ask Mr Porter the same question that was put to Mr Hardy about what level of responsibility you felt that you, as one of the organisers, had for the violence that we have seen on some of these protests.
Aaron Porter: Clearly, there is a dual responsibility here. Clearly there is a responsibility of the organisers of protests to ensure that there is a mutually agreed route. In the run-up to the 10 November demonstration that we organised, we met three times with the police and agreed a route. We outsourced the required health and safety arrangements and risk assessments to a professional organisation that had dealt with other events previously-Alex Burrow Events Ltd.
The organisers of a demonstration have a responsibility to try to ensure that those on the protest stick to the agreed route and act in a responsible fashion. I believe that we met all those requirements in the organisation of 10 November. I do believe that some people who came intent on causing violence had infiltrated our march on 10 November. It created scenes that were beyond our control, although we had met everything that we needed to do. I agree with Simon in so far as protesters should have an expectation that they are treated in a fashion that maintains and protects their human rights. I believe that there have been some infringements on subsequent actions, as I have already alluded to, but on the NUS protests we have worked sufficiently closely with the police and had a constructive relationship with them to ensure that we have discharged our responsibilities.
Q14 Lord Bowness: We are talking about responsibility. Mr Porter has just indicated a very reasonable sense of responsibility on the part of the organisers. To use words similar to the ones that you have used, given that people have infiltrated these demonstrations intent on violence, leaving aside for a moment the theory about Mr Hardy’s reference to 14 and 15-year-olds and their democratic right, do you think it would be responsible to suggest that parents should not bring young children or permit them to participate in something that even you as the organiser acknowledge is likely to be infiltrated by people intent on trouble?
Aaron Porter: In truth, we have an unprecedented level of anger about the Government’s proposals on tuition fees. Those of school and college age feel most uncomfortable about the proposals. There would equally be something irresponsible about the National Union of Students trying to prevent those people from legitimately voicing their concerns. The responsible thing to do is to have a constructive and honest relationship between the organisers of protests and the police to facilitate the overwhelming majority of people who want to protest peacefully. But I also believe that there needs to be sufficient intelligence to ensure that those who are intent on violence are not allowed on to the protest if, as some did, they come armed with snooker balls, smoke bombs and other things that make the policing for the majority of people incredibly difficult.
Simon Hardy: It is wrong to say that we should even consider putting aside democratic rights to protest for school students-
Q15 Lord Bowness: Forgive me for interrupting, but I didn’t say put it aside.
Simon Hardy: You said in theory we should put it aside.
Lord Bowness: Mr Hardy, I said just put it to one side for a minute for the purpose of my question. I accept the democratic right. I asked you whether you thought that it might be a responsible thing to do, given that all sorts of people acknowledge that on these demonstrations there are people intent on trouble. I said it was just for the purpose of answering that question. Please don’t try and misinterpret my question in a political fashion.
Simon Hardy: I reject utterly this narrative that demonstrations are being hijacked by minority organisations. This is a mass movement. It is democratic, it is legitimate and it is increasingly radicalised by what it sees going on in the Houses of Parliament and with the policing of demonstrations on the streets. It is right that school students, college students and university students should come on the protest. They should be joined by their parents if they want to come. We have already been joined by trade unionists and pensioners and others. It is an absolute democratic right in this country that we can protest and make our voice heard against injustice that we feel is going on in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The police need to ask themselves a question. If they want to make the demonstrations more violent and increase the police repression, it is only a matter of time before we get another Ian Tomlinson or another Blair Peach on the demonstrations. On 9 December, thankfully Alfie Meadows didn’t die, but someone in his situation could be hit by a policeman’s truncheon or knocked over by a horse and could be killed on these demonstrations. The responsibility lies in what is going on in Parliament to redress how people feel, how angry they are and why they are demonstrating. It is the responsibility of the police not to criminalise these demonstrations and violently attack them.
Q16 The Chairman: Thank you very much. I thank you once again for coming today. I apologise for the short session. If you feel that there are issues that we have not covered , we’d be very happy to receive a memorandum from both of you.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Chris Allison [Temporary Chief Constable, Metropolitan Police] and Sue Sim [ACPO lead on Public Order and Public Safety].
Q17 The Chairman: Welcome. For the record could you introduce yourselves, please?
Chris Allison: Thank you. My name is Chris Allison. I’m an assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police service. I’m responsible for central operations, the Olympics and Paralympics, which means that part of my remit is the policing of public order demonstrations in London.
Sue Sim: Good afternoon. I am Sue Sim. I’m the temporary Chief Constable of Northumbria Police and I’m the head of ACPO public order.
Q18 The Chairman: Both these sessions will be focusing clearly on the issue of containment, or kettling. This was used by the police on 24 and 30 November and on 9 December. We have evidence that water and toilets were made available to the demonstrators, but would you acknowledge t hat all the guidelines were not always applied and used? We are aware of the ACPO guidelines in relation to necessity, communication, timescales, differentiation, welfare and release. Notwithstanding t he very difficult circumstances, could you give your views on whether those guidelines were always applied?
Chris Allison: Thank you. Yes, I will give my views. It is important to stress that this is a Metropolitan Police operation. My colleague from ACPO can talk about the policy side, but I can talk about the specifics of the demonstrations.
I have listened to some of the evidence that I have heard before. You will understand that I may have slightly different views about what has been said. If you will forgive me, can I pay tribute to the men and women who were out on the front line at some of these demonstrations, and those who commanded them, for the way in which they dealt with very challenging and difficult protests? Some of the levels of violence they had to deal with, aimed at them, were some of the worst I have seen in the last 10 years of public order policing. I have been in the service for 27 years.
At the event on 24th we used a policy of containment. That was only put in place after officers at the junction with Parliament Street and Parliament Square came under attack. A number of protesters there started to dig up or remove all the railings that were around the gasworks at the bottom and started to attack police lines with a view to coming through. Those in command took the view that at that time, if the demonstration was allowed to move on unfettered, given the view that it was going to try to get to the Liberal Democrat headquarters in Cowley Street, we would have seen widespread damage and disorder. As a result they put in place a containment and then, having ensured that it was both necessary and proportionate in the first place, tried to ensure that all the learning that has come out of G20 was put into place. A containment officer, a superintendent, was appointed very soon. As you say, toilets and water were provided. I have an email that came in from a journalist that talks about what he saw on that day. An individual who has been very critical of us in the past says that all the learning was put in place. Access for journalists was given to and through the lines. Vulnerable people were allowed out wherever possible.
I spoke to the superintendent again this morning. He and his staff officer, or his runner as they are called, went into the crowd themselves on a number of occasions to look for young and vulnerable people. A significant number of people were let out of the cordon lines. We appreciate that it took some time to release everybody out of it. They were trying their level best to do it, but the worry was about the disorder that would take place.
Communication with protestors is a key part of this. We fully accept that. As you may recall, having seen the pictures from the first demonstration, the officers in the initial stages were not wearing NATO helmets; they were wearing normal beat duty helmets. Only when disorder took place did they put the NATO helmets on, but as quickly as he possibly could, the superintendent running the containment took the helmets off and put the flat caps back on so they could start communicating with people one-to-one. They tried to use loudhailers-mounted officers with loudhailers and the loudhailers on the tannoy systems on our vehicles. There were some challenges with that, because every time the tannoy on the vehicle was used, it was shouted down by large numbers of people in the crowd, but they did try.
In summary, we have learnt a lot since G20. We understand people’s right to peaceful protest. We have learnt from all the recommendations from this Committee and from the HMIC report. We were keen to ensure that we put them all into place, and we did on that day.
I shall make a couple of comments about the events on the 9th, which was a very different situation. As you have heard, we were keen to ensure that protesters had their democratic right and came to Parliament. It was an important part of that day. There was a vote taking place in Parliament. We accepted that protestors would want to get to Parliament Square and we wanted to do everything we could to get them here. Equally, we wanted to do everything we could to ensure that Parliament could operate without any interruption and the democratic process could take place.
When the protesters got to Parliament Square, as you have heard there was an incident where the crowd decided that they were going to take over the Green area. As a result, a number of them pushed down the Harris fencing. Then we saw very ugly and violent scenes at the south-east corner, where a significant number of people-this is no longer a minority-tried to force their way through police lines. This was a double-barrier system set up so that we didn’t have toe-to-toe police officers and demonstrators. We had double barriers to ensure there was distance between the two so that there could be no allegation or suggestion of police violence, which I entirely refute. They came under attack at that place. Yes, there were people who brought with them snooker balls, golf balls and paint; yes, people used the Harris fencing and various bits to try and force their way through. The pressure was such that they buckled the double fencing so it became a single line and police officers had to hold that for a considerable time.
The crowd then turned their attention to the south-west corner, where they tried to move out down Victoria. The worry for those in command was that they would try and come round the back and attack Parliament down Millbank, again trying to stop the democratic process. While we fully accept people’s right to peaceful protest, we do have to ensure that the democratic process can carry on.
At that time people could still leave down Whitehall. There were no cordons down Whitehall at all during those first two pieces of disorder. After a period of the second piece of disorder at Victoria Street, those in command put cordons across all five entrances, but we were still allowing people to leave down Whitehall provided that we were happy that they were non-violent and in small groups, and when it was practicable. If there was a large build-up, we wouldn’t allow people to go until that large build-up had gone, because we didn’t want, in effect, two demonstrations on two sides of a line of police officers, which became violent.
On that occasion toilets were brought up, but given that there was violence from within the crowd and they were setting light to anything that was inside the crowd, it was felt not safe to do so. We estimate that at the start 15,000 protesters came into Parliament Square. When we did the final move of protestors at 9pm on to Westminster Bridge to conclude the demonstration, there were only 4,000 there. To us, that shows that this wasn’t a containment in the traditional sense. We were allowing people to leave provided that they were peaceful. We weren’t holding large numbers of people. Sorry that is a long answer, but I hope it gives you what you are looking for.
Q19 Lord Dubs: I wonder if I could pursue the point about the kettling or containment. We have the difficulty that we are talking about four different demonstrations, but was it the case for the last two demonstrations that kettling was planned as a first resort, or was it always a last resort?
Chris Allison: Let me give you some reassurance. There were four different demonstrations. The times when it is suggested that we have used containment are the 24th and the 9th. There was a demonstration on the 30th, in the middle of those. On the 30th, right at the end of the demonstration we ended up putting an arrest bubble around something in the region of 200 people and 153 of them got arrested. That’s an entirely different matter.
On both occasions, on the 24th and the 9th, when we put cordons around them it was a last resort. When the disorder broke out at the south-east corner of Parliament Square, we left Whitehall open for a good hour and a half to allow anybody who didn’t want to be part of that protest and who wanted to be peaceful to leave without any challenge. We allowed that to happen. On no occasion was it a first resort; it was a last resort. We would far rather have people turn up, protest peacefully, have their say and leave the area.
Q20 Lord Dubs: What sort of communications were you able to have with the people who were being contained? Did the people being contained know that there was a way out through Whitehall? You say that part of the time they were able to go out that way and part of the time they weren’t.
Chris Allison: On 9 December, we brought one of our very large warning and informing pieces of equipment up, which has been provided as one of our contingency plans. You can hear in the background, over a very large tannoy system, those in the crowd being encouraged to leave via Whitehall. When the march stopped there and we started seeing the scenes of disorder, you can hear officers on the tannoy system encouraging people to leave the area and make their way down Whitehall to go to where the protest should have ended, on the Embankment.
Q21 Lord Dubs: Thank you. What’s your response to the comments we have heard earlier today, and on television, that people, including children, weren’t allowed to leave and that they were held there in a pretty harsh way?
Chris Allison: I would say on both that wherever practicable we allowed people to leave. On the containment on the 24th, one of the key things for Bronze Containment, the superintendent in charge of that, was to try to identify young and vulnerable people and get them out. I know he had Jenny Jones, a member of the GLA, watching a whole load of his activity during that time. She witnessed him doing that sort of thing. He was keen to do it. He was making sure that all the officers on the lines were looking for those vulnerable people. Exactly the same is true of the 9th. There may have been occasions when individuals came to the cordon line and said they wanted to go out and were told they couldn’t go out at that moment because the area further up the road was not clear, so there were worries about the crowd getting out. But I go back to my earlier comment: over the time that the cordons were in place, somehow about 11,000 people left Parliament Square, which shows that we had a porous cordon in place and we were allowing those who were vulnerable out of that area.
Q22 Lord Dubs: In the light of what happened, would you do things differently next time?
Chris Allison: We recognise that people have a right to peaceful protest. There are those who would say that maybe we shouldn’t have allowed the protest to come to Parliament Square. Maybe we should have used different tactics. Maybe we should have identified all the people who came intent on causing violence. The challenge for us is that if we had done anything to prevent that protest getting to Parliament Square on the 9th, there would have been those who would rightly have said that we had stopped people having their right to protest peacefully and to be part of the democratic process. Our view was that it was very important that they were able to get here.
So no, I think we would still try to do whatever we could to allow those who want to protest peacefully to do so. I have heard comments in a number of places about our challenge of identifying those who are clearly violent and want to come on these protests to commit violence. It is slightly difficult. There is a big investigation going on in relation to all four protests. While I am sure there are individuals who are at the extreme end of radicalisation and there are people who come with the intention of committing acts of disorder, the sad fact is that the majority of the people we have arrested for some very serious offences until now have been students. If they end up being charged with those serious offences, this will change the rest of their lives. These are people who we probably wouldn’t have identified at the start of the protest as being likely to get involved in acts of disorder, but for one reason or another they have done and as a result of that they will probably pay the price for the rest of their lives. Our view is that that is very sad. We want people to come and protest peacefully, but I will not and cannot accept that in some way the tactics that we have used justify violence by any person. They do not justify violence against property or against police officers. We are there to facilitate peaceful protest. We have not been attacking protesters. We have been defending lines wherever we’ve had to do it.
Q23 Lord Bowness: You will be aware that there has been criticism of the decision to contain or kettle the demonstrators despite their relatively young age and the presence of many children. It must be difficult, but do you have an option of tactics? Does the age of the demonstrators affect the tactics that you choose when policing a protest? Is there a different strategy when a large number of children are present? Part of the same question is how did officers on the cordon deal with parents who arrived asking for their children to be released from the containment? I won’t ask you to comment on why they had their children in the containment when they were on the outside.
Chris Allison: On all these things, we look at who we are dealing with. We have to in any event. Once disorder has broken out, irrespective of the age of the crowd, we have a duty to ensure that we manage it as best we can. Then we have a duty to try to protect the vulnerable as quickly as we possibly can. That was in the minds of the Bronze Commander and the Bronze Containment on the 24th, when there was talk of there being a significant number of younger people there. We brought large numbers out because they were encouraging them to come out. We acted wherever possible when parents came up or reported stuff to us. I dealt with one individual who rang me for advice about some 15-year-olds who were caught inside a containment. They were in school uniform. I told that person to tell them to go to the front line, where the police officers were, identify who they were and they would be allowed out. That is exactly what happened.
It is a challenge, because sadly, some of these people, even at 16 or 17, became involved in disorder. Not all of them did; in fact the vast majority won’t have done. Unfortunately, violence and disorder doesn’t just kick in at the age of 18; for some people it kicks in a bit younger. Our job is to try to manage these protests for the benefit of everybody, while recognising that we need to protect the vulnerable during that time.
I sat at the debrief on the night of the 24th, in the early hours of the morning of the 25th. I looked in the eyes of the officer who had run that containment. He had worked his socks off that evening to try to do it as quickly as he possibly could, having made sure that all the lessons from G20 were included and trying to make sure that he got vulnerable people out of there. I could see the passion in his eyes.
Q24 Lord Bowness: Can I go on to the use of horses? You will know that there are conflicting reports of whether horses were used to charge demonstrators on 24 November. There is some video evidence that confirms the use of horses. Can you comment on the use of horses on that day? If the horses were charged at protestors, how does that fit with the need for policing tactics to be proportionate to the protests? Was the use of horses part of the strategy for dispersing the protesters at the end of the containment? Could I ask you to comment generally on the use of horses? Charging is a remarkably emotive word. If you use it in an old-fashioned military sense, it is people with drawn arms advancing to and into the enemy, or the crowd, or whatever the scenario is-the enemy in a military scenario, but the crowd in a police scenario. Horses, even trotting, in terms of moving people back, is a different situation. It would be useful if we understood the language that we are using when we talk about charging.
Chris Allison: We certainly don’t use that language at all. What you are talking about is an active advance. I shall talk you through how we use horses in public order. They are a very valuable commodity, not just in public order but in general policing. They are out there and visible and people see them. We use them regularly at football matches to manage crowds. We use them in a number of ways. At football matches you will regularly see them mingling with crowds as the crowds build up on the approach to a game. You’ll see them occasionally being used to block roads. If you’ve ever been to Wembley and gone down Wembley Way, we manage the crowds going into the tube station by having six horses that are parallel to the crowd, and then they turn across the crowd. That is a non-threatening way to hold the crowd back to allow us to clear the platform until the next lot go up.
We’ll also use the horses in more challenging situations to hold lines. That’s what you saw on 9 December in Victoria Street. When the first line of officers came under attack, they were reinforced by a mounted group who came up to that junction and in effect took the front line. On occasions, they would walk their horses into the crowd. Am I going to say that a horse is always perfectly under control? Sometimes when people throw some of the missiles and flares that we saw being thrown at them, the horses will rear up and then go back, which is a danger for the police officers who are in and around the area. That’s where the horses were holding that particular line.
The active advance took place on 24th. We had a containment at the bottom end of Whitehall. Those managing it were trying their best to get rid of people and release them out of the cordons as quickly as they possibly could. North of that cordon was another group of protesters. I heard Mr Hardy talk about them as people who had come down and were being very supportive. A significant number of those people were being exceptionally violent. They were the very violent ones. A superintendent was responsible for moving that cordon up to the top of Trafalgar Square to enable us to release people from the cordons within the containment. But we can’t release them when they’ve got nowhere to go, so we needed to clear that particular area. He moved them forward and after a while the violence was such on the level 2 officers that he had to bring the horses through, round the side of the line and the horses would walk through the crowd and would then come back the other side. The officers would take up and move it forward again.
When they came to the junction with Horseguards Avenue, there were concerns that a number of demonstrators who had been very violent went round the corner. There were roadworks there and they were picking up missiles. The officers at this time were not in possession of shields; they were just in public order equipment. He took the view that at the appropriate time, to get them past that junction so that they crowd couldn’t arm themselves with missiles, it was right to use an active advance. An active advance is a line of horses some considerable distance behind the police line. They make their way up to the police line, at a trot. The police commander shouts "split", the police line splits and the horses go through the line. As they go through the line, they stop trotting and they slow down. It is very rare that we do this. We only do it when the crowd have somewhere to go to and the horses are not going to cause serious injury to individuals. By what I have seen and heard in the reports, they didn’t, but we managed to achieve our end, because the protesters, seeing the horses, didn’t want to be there any more, so they moved significantly faster northwards up Whitehall. As a result, we were able to take that junction and prevent them getting hold of the missiles. That is the one occasion that I am aware of when we used it. It is not a charge; it is an active advance. It is an ACPO-approved tactic that thankfully we rarely have to use, but it was used on that day because of the violence that the officers were dealing with.
Q25 Mr Raab: On 9 December, in relation to the planning you put in place and the communication you had with the organisers, did you discuss and think through a sliding scale of response measures? I am wondering what the concrete alternatives are to containment, given the situation that arose and what the risks were of not putting that in place. You have talked a bit about Cowley Street a nd the intention of the protesters to head down there. I wonder whether you could give us a clearer indication on both of those points.
Chris Allison: The alternative to containment is dispersal. Our sincere hope on the 9th was to get the protesters into Parliament Square so that they could say that they had been a part of that democratic process and they had their right to protest peacefully. We allowed them to go there. As I have mentioned earlier, our lines came under attack as a result of them deciding that they were not happy with where they were and they wanted to get into Parliament. I have no doubt that if those officers hadn’t bravely defended the line, people would have tried to force their way into Parliament that day.
We put the cordons across the top of Victoria Street to stop a similar group going down Victoria Street and either coming round the back and returning via Millbank, which again would have seen significant challenges for us and significant disorder, or potentially even worse, as we have seen in other protests going back to 1993, 94 or 95, when you disperse people who have already become disorderly through an area of shops and high value property, they are willing to commit more acts of disorder, even if they break into smaller and smaller groups. Once that violence has boiled over, people feel empowered to do it. Those in command were concerned that you would have ended up with widespread disorder taking place, with shops being smashed and potentially people having a go at the glass on the BIS building, No. 1 Victoria Street.
When disorder has broken out, the alternative to containment is dispersal. The history of when you do dispersal in an area that is full of shops and property that doesn’t belong to the people involved shows that they are quite willing to commit acts of disorder and damage it. That is very different from some of the challenges my colleagues face when they are dealing with disorder from people who are living in their own environment. You can disperse groups of people who are in their own environment, because generally they don’t damage their own environment. My colleagues in Northern Ireland, who had to deal with this for a number of years, found that people don’t generally burn down their own houses, but if there is a shop there that doesn’t belong to them and disorder has already happened, they are more willing to do it. I am not saying this is everybody, but sadly, we have seen over these protests that it is no longer a small minority but a significant number of people being willing to commit those acts of disorder.
Q26 Mr Raab: On the 9th, the route was agreed and much of the problems seemed to arise when, rather than travelling along the route, the protest remained in Parliament Square. I wondered who you felt was responsible for the breach of the route. Was it isolated individuals or was there a concerted effort to remain there? Do you think the organisers bore responsibility? Related to that, once that happened, what contingency planning had you put in place ? Is that when, in the commander’s mind, containment comes into play? Do you have any other contingency planning for breaches of route?
Chris Allison: On the day, we sincerely hoped that everybody would follow the agreed route. I am not into the blame game. It has been said in this Committee and other Committees I have been to before. This is about the police service and the organisers working together. That’s why, at that particular point, we ensured there was a PA system that we could use to encourage the crowds to make their way down the agreed route. That was used on a number of occasions. It is the responsibility of the organisers to ensure that they follow the agreement and that they put in place the necessary resource on their side by way of stewards and others to try and encourage people to follow it.
I have to pay tribute. On 10 November, the very first protest, which was a challenging day for a number of people, some of the stewards who were employed were absolutely magnificent. They tried their best to step in and to encourage people not to commit acts of disorder around Millbank. Stewards can work. I have seen it happen on a number of protests. There is an onus on the police service and the organisers to make sure that we fulfil what we have agreed. Sadly, on that day the protesters didn’t. Sadly, they stayed. Our job then was to manage it.
Obviously, our contingency plan was that they were not going to leave Parliament Square, they may not go down Whitehall and they may not go to the Embankment. As far as we were concerned, our contingency plan was that if they went to Parliament Square and stayed there, provided that there were no acts of disorder, that was fine, because they would be peacefully protesting and we can manage that. We have to manage the traffic around and manage Parliament to ensure that it can still operate, but the contingency plan is that we have to manage it and then try to encourage them to go. We only ended up putting in the cordons after we came under attack. It is important that I say this. Police officers were standing behind double layers of barriers. They came under attack. They had to defend those lines. It was not any form of aggression from the police service.
Q27 Mr Sharma: You answered the question on the kettling procedures adopted. Surely many organisations that work with young people are very concerned that under-18s, who were exercising their right to freedom, were seriously subject to kettling procedures. What steps were taken and how can you explain that you have fulfilled your duty under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004?
Chris Allison: I talked about the passion that I saw in the eyes of the Containment Bronze officer who had looked after it. He worked very hard to ensure that every officer on every one of those cordon lines understood their responsibilities in those circumstances. We didn’t want to put containment in, but we had to as a result of the disorder and our fear of what would happen. Because we put that containment in, we had to ensure that we were looking for vulnerable people. They could have included people of all ages, but certainly children. He encouraged them to talk to people by taking their NATO riot helmets off and putting their caps back on to explain to people. He personally walked into the crowd on a number of occasions, despite there having been severe violence. He had de-escalated it by taking the NATO helmets off when the violence stopped to ensure that we were able to communicate better. The fact that he and his runner walked into the crowd themselves looking for vulnerable people gives a good example of extent that we were going to to try to ensure that we were doing everything that we possibly could.
As I have said to this Committee before, the policing of public order is not an exact science; it is very challenging. We will look at every event and see if we can get it better. Our desire in all of this is to have a peaceful protest where people come, they say their piece and then they go home. That is what we would like on every occasion.
Q28 The Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence today. We haven’t covered everything. There are particular issues that we would like to have covered, but time is against us. However, we will write to you specifically on four issues: police intelligence; use of batons; treatment of disabled protesters; and the covering of police numbers. As we said to our earlier witnesses, if there are other issues that you would like to raise with us, we would be very pleased to receive a memorandum from you.
Chris Allison: I will certainly write back to you on all of those. Can I just make one point about covering up numbers, because this is an important issue of confidence? As soon as that matter was brought to our attention, it was given to the Directorate of Professional Standards, who are still looking into it. There is an explanation that sits behind it. We are working our way through it. It came out as a recommendation from this Committee, from the Home Affairs Select Committee and from HMIC and we have been at pains to ensure that every officer out there is wearing the numerals. We must have deployed something in the region of 8,000 officers on the streets during these recent demonstrations. I am aware of only one incident. The officer had been wearing her yellow tabard over the top of her protective equipment. That was not flame-retardant. As flares were being thrown at police officers, they were advised very quickly to take them off, because if they caught fire it could have caused them serious injury. As a result, because of the pressure of time she did not remember or get time enough to move her epaulettes on to her flame-retardant clothing. She is the only one that we are aware of. That is still being investigated by the Directorate of Professional Standards in the organisation. The commissioner and I have made it quite clear that officers will wear identification at all these demonstrations. I am not making an excuse about this episode, but the fact that there are no other reports at this time shows the extent to which intrusive supervision has been put in place by the service. We are determined to ensure that officers are accountable. They accept that they are accountable and therefore they will wear identification.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. In closing this session, I convey the good wishes of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to everyone who was injured, both protesters and police officers. Our very good wishes go to them for a speedy recovery.
|©Parliamentary copyright||Prepared 16th December 2010|