Conference 2001 - Chairman's Speech
SPEECH BY CHAIRMAN: MR ALEX ROBERTSON
ON WEDNESDAY 28TH MARCH 2001 AT THE
LIVERPOOL MOAT HOUSE HOTEL
Ladies and Gentlemen, guests, colleagues and delegates. Good morning and welcome to Conference. This year's conference is different for a number of reasons. No it's not because it is the first in the new millennium. It's for other reasons.
First, you will have gathered by now that we have no Government Minister to respond to my address. Just when we thought we had cracked it with the appearance of Lord MacDonald last year, here we are again without a Minister.
To be fair, although we wrote in November, the Government must have already decided that they would be totally committed to fighting a May general election and that no-one could be spared from the campaign planning.
To say the least this is a pity. I have no problem in providing a member of Government with the opportunity to inform us of their concerns and policies and to advise them of issues which affect police officers. The better informed we all are, then the more valid is our judgement. While the foot and mouth crisis rightly occupies the headlines, other problems have not gone away. I would have thought that this Government should also be extremely exercised, to the say the least, about public confidence in their safety on the railways. As the specialist police service most aware of how to protect the travelling public, as the specialist police service which has had to deal with the dreadful aftermath of the three very serious fatal railway accidents, we have something to say to Government on these incidents. It is disappointing that in the run-up to a general election the Government fails to recognise the significance of the speaking platform we offer.
I am saying this publicly to you today because we are arranging to see Lord MacDonald, the Transport Minister, within the next few weeks to make these same points.
The second thing which is different about this conference is that it takes place when public confidence in their railway safety is at an all time low. Since 1998 we have had four serious accidents. At Southhall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield, Mossend in Scotland and most recently at Selby. 52 people have been killed and 665 injured. People's lives have been changed utterly and in many cases, permanently, for the worse.
The overriding priority for the public is to establish what happened, how did it happen, where were the human and mechanical failures and most important of all - how do we prevent it happening again?
All of the agencies responsible for the protection of the public must open themselves up freely to outside scrutiny and self-examination. And clearly this applies to the British Transport Police and to the Federation which has a role to play in protecting the interests of our individual members.
We meet then at conference in a very changed context, one in which there is widespread concern at what is happening to our railways and at the same time there is scrutiny on the future of the BTP - some of it constructive and some of it unhelpful to this Force. The irony is that prior to what can only be described as this recent spate of accidents our Chief Constable had been able to report that our much used railways were being policed with growing success. Despite police manpower being unchanged detections were up, crime was down and passenger numbers were increasing as confidence in the railways became a fact of travelling life.
In this address then I want to set out the Federation's agenda. It divides into two parts. There are issues which we are pursuing with Government. I have touched upon these in my opening remarks and I will return to these and others later on. There are also several issues which vitally and immediately are a priority with our officers and I will start with these.
I will begin by congratulating the Defence Police Federation for at long last getting a constructive response to their case for an extension of jurisdiction. As many of you here today will know the Armed Forces Bill currently in the Commons contains proposals for a limited extension of the jurisdiction of MDP officers to deal with an emergency life-threatening situation if they come across one when off-base or travelling between defence establishments.
I know from discussions that I have had with our DPF colleagues that the proposed concession is no monumental tribute to enlightened thinking among the higher ranks of the police service. It is largely the result of the MDP being unable to assist other police during the fuel crisis. Either way the end result should be the same and MDP members should be able to enjoy the protection of the office of constable at certain critical times in future.
How we envy them.
The British Transport Police Federation has pressed for several years for recognition that our officers are being regularly placed in a similar embarrassing and even dangerous predicament of having to act as fully attested police officers even when off jurisdiction.
Successive Government Ministers have come to this conference and sagely nodded their heads at the sheer logic of our compelling arguments for change. But nothing ever happens. The MDP were lucky in that not only did the fuel crisis open the Government's eyes but that they had a convenient legislative vehicle available in the Armed Forces Bill to carry the necessary clauses.
Our need for an extension of jurisdiction is no different. We deal with the travelling public, yet when incidents occur beyond railway property we are unable to act but must. We are obliged professionally and personally to meet the public's expectation that we act as police officers on or off jurisdiction, and even in or out of uniform.
The recent Transport Bill should have included the necessary legislative proposals to offer us officer protection.
We feel badly let down that it didn't and can only suppose that eventually there will be a crisis of sufficient proportion for the Government to see the light - just as they did with the MDP. In the meantime I urge our fellow federations, most of whom are represented here today,to give us you full support in rectifying this long standing anomaly.
The extension of jurisdiction is not the only area in which we feel let down. Last year at conference I spoke about the need for CS gas to be available to our officers. The efficiency of CS cannot be disputed. The Police Complaints Authority has regularly released figures which continue to show a dramatic fall in the number of assaults on officers. By contrast forces without the protection of CS sprays have seen assaults rise. What disappoints me is that we were led to believe that the Management of this Force were not only sympathetic but that CS would be introduced within months.
That, of course, was twelve months ago and there's still not a whiff of CS about the place. Officers still go on patrol, nightly finding themselves in tight corners with only limited backup - and even that can be, literally, somewhat down the line. Headquarters, of course, are still evaluating tests, anything but fulfilling their obligation of duty of care to their police officer employees. In fact I have been made aware that the last two meetings of the Force's Personnel Protection Group where this matter could usefully be discussed have actually be cancelled. Is it any wonder that our police officers wonder what the priorities of our management really are?
We also may be facing a threat of a different kind - in its own way more serious to the health of this Force.
Last December the British Railways Board advertised for a new Chief Constable as a replacement for David Williams who retires this month.
Buried in the advertisement was the reference that the progress towards the setting up of a new Police Authority for the Force would create the need and opportunity for a strategic review of railway policing. The new chief constable would be able to make a major contribution to that review and would take the lead in implementing its conclusions.
My suspicions were aroused by the inclusion of this reference to strategic review for a number of reasons.
I immediately wrote to Lord MacDonald asking him to stop this review on the grounds that it should await the setting up of the new police authority body which will be a more balanced representation of all the railways, especially the public interest. I also wrote in a similar vein to James Jerram, the Chairman of the British Transport Police Committee, advising him that the review was premature.
Lord MacDonald advised the Federation that it would be inappropriate for him to intervene and there the matter apparently had to rest.
All of this points to the fact that the public interest is not sufficiently safeguarded under the legislation provided by the British Transport Police Scheme of 1963.
On the one hand the Government is saying that it would be in appropriate to become involved, and on the other hand, the Government has already recognised the inadequacy of the present policing arrangements through the recent circulation of a draft consultation document on the future of the British Transport Police. That document proposes to establish an independent national police authority modelled on the lines of the existing Home Office police authorities with some modification to take account of the BTP's unique features.
Since February the BTP has been employed by the Strategic Rail Authority. Accountability is to a Police Committee, which is dominated by the Train Operating Companies. This Police Committee oversees the running of the Force.
In the words of the consultative document, I quote… "The Government believes this position is unacceptable for a modern police force and has announced its intention to introduce legislation concerning the BTP. The legislation will have the objective of bringing the BTP into line with Home Office forces regarding its status, public accountability, jurisdiction and the powers available to the force." Well we can all safely say 'Amen to that!'
In view of the Government's declared intention to transform the statutory basis of the Force it seems ludicrous to this federation that any review by the existing Police Committee should even be contemplated. Am I being unduly suspicious if I ask: is this a case of getting one's retaliation in first? Are the Train Operating Companies, through their control of the Police Committee, going to try to push through reductions in what is to them expensive police manpower?
I believe that the new British Transport Police Authority, which will have only two Train Operating Company representatives on its membership out of 13 rather than the present ?, will have a greater awareness about the current balance between commercial objectives and the public interest. It may also, with its broader representation, be more aware of the operational protocols.
I was appalled to hear recently that the Police Committee had demanded to see the senior officer who had supervised the rescue at the train accident in Mossend in Scotland. The Committee was told by our Chief Constable, David Williams, that any operational questions about the conduct of the Force at any level would be answered by him. I applaud him for his robust approach. The distinction between accountability for the performance of this Force and the integrity of command of the Chief Constable should not be compromised.
This is a further example of how the present Police Committee has demonstrated that its role and composition no longer meets the needs of a modern specialist railway police service. The Chief Constable answers for the Force. We cannot have individual officers paraded before amateurs, no matter how well meaning, to account for professional operational decisions.
My Federation will be urging the Government to press ahead with the formal circulation of the consultation paper. We like what we have seen; it certainly addresses the key issues of a proper representative police authority; putting our terms of conditions of service on a regulatory basis, an extension of our jurisdiction and an extension of our powers. In all of these the Government will have our strong support.
I am also led to believe that in response to a recent query of mine that the strength of the Force is expected to grow by some ten per cent a year for the next ten years. This would indeed be good news for the viability of the force and the career prospects for the officers.
And on that point about careers can I make a particular plea here? It is no use the Force presenting ourselves as a specialist police service if retired officers from other police forces can walk into the BTP at a reasonably senior rank and over the heads of existing officers.
If there are shortcomings in the promotional capabilities of our own officers these need to be addressed through proper investment in training and career skills development.
We devalue our standing as a force with highly developed skills unique to railway policing if we also become a soft touch for retired officers looking to supplement their pensions.
There are, of course, other areas where my Federation has to express anxiety rather than support. A key one of them is the proposed privatisation of London Underground. The Government's intentions here are anything but clear but the BTP do have some 420 officers working the Underground. Their present employment is based on a contract between the BTP and London Underground.
At this stage it is unlikely that policing arrangements are an immediate priority with Mr Robert Kiley, the adviser on the privatisation of the Underground, but I have written to his office indicating that they are a priority with us and requesting a meeting. It is very unclear what the form the privatisation of the Underground might take. The uncertainty caused by this is unsettling for my members and ending that has to be soon.
The future of the BTP overall should be assured if the Government's consultative document is anything to go by. The value of the contribution that the BTP makes to safeguarding the public interest is evident from our excellent work in the aftermath of the recent train accidents. Public confidence in our railways has been badly shaken. To restore confidence we must have a strong independent railway police.
That police service must be accountable to an equally strong national authority free of commercial pressures real or perceived. The reforms proposed by Government will benefit the police and public alike and will be welcomed by us.
With us today is Mr Tony Lake, who has been Acting Chief Constable since the retirement of Mr Williams was announced. Mr Lake, you have done an admirable job at a period of time when the railways and the protection of the public have never been more in the spotlight. My Federation congratulates you. You have made sterling efforts to get round all areas of the Force and the feedback on your visits from the officers has been excellent.
The new Chief Constable, Ian Johnston, takes over this May. We warmly welcome him and wish him well on his appointment.
And in line with what I said earlier about less senior appointments to this force the position of Chief Constable of the British Transport Police is very definitely no easy ride into retirement out of the police service. If anything the events of the past few years - rail accidents, security issues, the management of change - will test the operational and intellectual capabilities of the most experienced senior officer in any force. This Federation has a role to play in being constructive and supportive in its dealings with change management. A number of issues which the Federation has been pursuing with management over some five (?) years remain to be resolved. A new Chief Constable will hopefully bring a fresh approach. On behalf of the Federation we promise him that we will play our part.
Thank you.
