British Transport Police Federation

ANNUAL CONFERENCE
BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE FEDERATION
SPEECH BY CHAIRMAN: MR ALEX ROBERTSON

1100 HRS ON WEDNESDAY 17TH MARCH 2004 AT THE
HILTON BRIGHTON WEST PIER, BRIGHTON

Minister, this is your first occasion to hear the views so publicly of the British Transport Police Federation. We welcome this opportunity to talk direct to Ministers at conference.

These tend to be sometimes robust but always constructive exchanges. Indeed such has been the excitement of these occasions that Ministers have had no difficulty in passing up on Budget Day or any of the numerous St Patrick's Day celebrations to be here.

Numerically the British Transport Police is, of course, a small force. Our strength sits at just barely 2,100 officers… and it is falling.

But two things distinguish us from the 51 other county and metropolitan forces who provide this country with its high standard of professional policing. First, we are a national force with responsibilities spanning the railway network from North to South, East to West. Our main concentration of strength is in London's railway stations and underground network. We also are a force which operates across the two neighbouring jurisdictions of Scotland and England and Wales.

Our second distinguishing characteristic, and possibly our more important one, is that we are a specialist service. We exercise, in the main, all the powers of constable vested in the rest of the police service. But our special entrustment is that we have a primary responsibility for public safety on our railroads. That responsibility includes not only the travelling public, who made 976 million passenger journeys last year, but the 100,000 railway company employees.

I make these two points about what characterises the British Transport Police not just from a genuine sense of justifiable pride but to emphasise the importance of treating us with clear understanding that our role is unique. Occasionally this requires that the Force should be treated not better but differently from other police forces.

The value of our contribution to policing has been regularly reviewed, in one case by the Department of Transport and more recently, in an indirect way, by the Home Office.

I am pleased to report that with regard to the Department of Transport, we emerged as the police provider of choice for the transport industry.

The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it then was, said in October 2001 that the British Transport Police was "central to the Government's transport policies" and that we had "a crucial role to play in achieving targets for increasing rail use by both passengers and freight". These were not off-the-wall conclusions. These are the words of a consultation document which was widely distributed and everyone, police and industry interests alike, had the opportunity to conclude otherwise. They did not and so we might have been forgiven for beginning to believe - as a Federation - that perhaps our future was at last secure.

But no, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, visits New York. He is bowled over by Rudi Giuliani's success in combating New York's high and unacceptable levels of crime. He concludes that it was achieved by the simple expedient of merging the Transit and Housing police forces into the City of New York's Police Department.

Without, I suspect, much consultation, if any, with the Department of Transport,which is actually responsible for the British Transport Police, he instigated a review of the London Underground Police and their relationship with the Metropolitan Police Service. That review was meant to conclude that the Underground should be merged into the Metropolitan Police Service. I am sure Minister that although the history of this giddy thinking predates your tenure in the Department, you are probably familiar with the proposal.

I will not labour the point other than to suggest that its implementation would have brought little benefit to the Metropolitan Police, none at all to the feeling of public safety of Tube travellers and would have almost certainly sabotaged the operational viability of the British Transport Police. We should all agree with Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary when he refers, somewhat dryly, in his report into the inspection of this force as having 'survived' the Home Secretary's proposals. Surviving one report after another is hardly good for the morale of young police officers planning a career in the service.

It is worth noting other parts of the Her Majesty Inspectors report here. And as I said earlier, it is not just because we would like it publicly acknowledged that we are doing a good job - instead it's because I want to highlight why there is a sense of grievance and uncertainty which continues to undermine the spirit of our officers.

Overall we emerged from this inspection with credit. HMI's report noted we were part of the Street Crime Initiative which involved ten other forces and achieved the best results of all.

Robbery was reduced by 32% and detections raised to 26%. A similar pattern of improvement was noted in vehicle crime. The force has now acquired primacy over Home Office forces in respect of all crime, including murder, committed upon the railway. Our record in clearing up the most serious offences is very good and a culture of professional competence and confidence was recorded.

These are encouraging, independent, professional findings Minister, which would lead us, not unnaturally, to believe that at long last perhaps those responsible for ensuring that there is proper regard for public safety on the railways had seen the wisdom of having a dedicated specialist railway police service.

Well, the answer is no. Such confidence would be misplaced. That same report duly notes that "with the sole exception of London Underground who see policing as central to their public safety agenda, train operators are loathe to fund the force to the required level." This unwillingness to meet their contractual obligations with the force continues to be a shameful attitude on the part of the Train Operating Companies.

Reluctance to pay and in some cases it is a refusal to pay, is a consequence of the Department applying the 'user pays principle'. Minister, your Department has heard me before on this point but I make no apology for bringing up the matter again. It is significant that it was also raised by Her Majesty's Inspector. The misapplication of the principle goes right to the heart of our problems as a force.

In this Federation's view policing should not be seen as a cost by the Train Operating Companies. It is a pity that they cannot take the same enlightened attitude as their Transport for London colleagues. The Underground working in conjunction has injected a further Ł5.4m into the police service. They have no difficulty in seeing a straight correlation between police numbers and public safety. By contrast the number of railway passengers in Britain has risen by around 33 percent since 1995. But there has been no comparable investment in policing to meet the public need. If passengers feel safe, they will happily travel on their railways. And it is not only the passengers who want to see police visibility. Their own railway employees have welcomed the presence of our officers as conducive to improving the safety environment.

The initiative we took to introduce DNA testing to combat spitting has considerably eased what was a distressing attack on employees by some aggressive passengers. We repeat our view to Government that the users of Transport Police services are the travelling public and the general public in and around railway stations. Given that we have also had our jurisdiction recently extended to offer support to other police forces, then the strict interpretation of the argument that the user pays becomes even more threadbare.

We have a situation where we cannot get our money from the Train Operating Companies in a timely and orderly fashion. This reluctance costs our senior management valuable time and disrupts resources planning. However, Minister, responsibility for our financial woes does not end with the Train Operating Companies.

Two other problems arise in relation to our funding and both of these are rooted in Government. First, we were denied the Ł3 million or so that was offered to each Home Department force to fund police reform. No-one thought to include the British Transport Police in the list of recipients. Our operational budget has taken a hammering as the force is obliged to find the extra money from its existing budget.

Even more recently, your Ministerial colleague in the Home Office, Hazel Blears, has confirmed that every Police Authority in England and Wales is to receive a 3.25% increase in funding. As she put it and I quote…

We also saw how the Home Office made additional funding available to other forces to combat terrorism yet London's railway network is a prime terrorist target. Our railway stations and bridges have been either the subject of hoax or actual bomb attacks more so than any other building or symbol of London.

Surely the needs of the British Transport Police are just as pressing as our colleagues throughout the rest of the police service. As we stand the British Transport Police is facing a Ł10 million shortfall out of our budget of Ł126 million. That is bad news but there is worse to come.

We look like being the only Force in the United Kingdom which has to pay Value Added Tax. Because of our Non-Departmental Public Body status we appear to be liable for VAT. The initial additional costs are almost Ł4 million and in succeeding years more millions will be required.

I know that we are all meant to be commercially minded nowadays but I never foresaw the day that we would be raising revenue for Customs and Excise. Taking these financial blows altogether our budget shortfall has risen to around Ł30 million. No force can cope which is deprived of sums of that magnitude and still be viable operationally as a unitary service.

Already the consequences of years of under-funding have made themselves felt. "Groaning' is how Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary described our infrastructure. As a force we have the lowest number of civilian staff to police officer ratio in the United Kingdom by a very long way. That suggests that we may not be making best use of our officers or else we have got our support administrative systems absolutely right. I cannot believe that how we are operating is anything other than a failure to invest in the force. That lack of investment is preventing the best use of resources. Our core business plan remains a dream-like wish list rather than enjoying the prospect of becoming a reality. A proper review of the budgetary requirements of this force is long overdue.

This July we will have a new Police Authority, freshly reconstituted and with, I believe, a customer focus. To date, I am sorry to say, the Committee has been dominated by the railway companies and has been industry-led. A new focus would include the Authority examining the financial circumstances of the Force and seeing what could be done rather than what would be cut. Sir Alistair Graham faces a huge challenge in changing the culture of his predecessors. He and his new colleagues have our support and best wishes for the task.

A more enlightened attitude centred on the travelling public, responsive to their needs and sensitive towards the factors which encourage the public to travel by train is what is needed.

If our officers are seen as cost rather than as a means of boosting the numbers of people on trains, then train use will fall along with public confidence in their safety.

It is not only the numbers of officers which should be boosted, so should their morale. Last year, in his infinite wisdom, the Home Secretary introduced Special Priority Payments. Special Priority Payments do not fit into the police culture. We work in a profession which expects to see reward and risk equally shared by colleagues. We do not expect fellow officers to receive extra payments for barely discernable or justifiable distinctions in duty or length of service.

Special Priority Payments are divisive and their inconsistent allocation to selected officers by Chief Constables has caused more grief to staff relations between officers and between officers and management than anything I can remember since Sheehy.

Our Chief Constable was so hard pressed for funds that unwisely he sought to tear up all our existing staff contracts. The Federation found itself having to defend the long standing terms and conditions of its members. Withholding police reform money was not a legitimate or moral negotiating tactic.

Its employment as a threat soured relations greatly within this force. As a result the Federation had to very reluctantly resort to legal redress.

Eventually, after protracted pressure in the face of our strong legal position, management conceded that their stance was unsustainable and common sense prevailed.

Minister, I know that the issue of pensions is not a direct matter for you, but as you may be aware the Federation was invited to sit on a working group with your Department to make sure that forthcoming pensions legislation would sit comfortably with our Fund and current arrangements.

The Department insisted that the Secretary of State becomes the overseer of our scheme similar to the position of the Home Secretary, regarding the home office forces pension scheme. No dispute from my Federation; secondly, and more importantly, we were led to believe that the Department viewed the current local trustees, "the Management Committee," as a very essential part if not the most important component of our pension structure. Minister, we have just had a deficit in our actuarial valuation.

In line with our rules a joint working party representing the Employer, Employees, and Pensioners was set up and recommendations made to address the deficit. This is where a problem surfaced.

The Employer, in the guise of the Police Committee and their Chairman, altered the recommendations of the joint working party and forced the local trustees to accept an ultimatum or the Fund would be put into a default position.

Someone has to explain to my Federation the point of having local trustees if the Employer can bully them into decisions that were clearly in the best interest of the employer and disregard the working parties recommendations.

It is a shameful way for the Employer and the Police Committee to behave and I ask you Minister to ensure that our views in the future are heard and acted upon. The interests of our members and pensioners must be protected.

As I said at the beginning our difficulties have not gone away. The necessity for this force is evident in the role that we play in investigating accidents on our hard pressed railway infrastructure. Only last month a runaway wagon killed four workmen.

On behalf of my Federation I send our sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the bereaved and a speedy recovery to the injured.

Now we have several officers investigating the incident. This investigation comes on top of the three major accidents still being followed up at Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potter's Bar. Investigations of such depth require enormous resources and have huge funding implications which are insufficiently recognised in our budget provision.

The need to satisfy public accountability places huge demands on our investigative resources and draws officers away from dealing with routine crime. Far from facing financial cuts this force should be seeking to recruit more officers so that we can meet our operational responsibilities.

Minister, my message is simple. The British Transport Police may be a non-Home Office force. But we need a Home Office level of support. So serious is our financial position that it appears we are to lose 50 police jobs in order to save money.

The irony is not lost on my Federation that these cuts will be implemented at a time when the Home Secretary has announced the UK police service has reached 138,000 officers, a ten percent increase on recent levels. Pro-rata for the British Transport Police we should be recruiting at least 200 more officers. Instead we are struggling to find finances and even contemplating the closure of some of our smaller stations. It is no way to run a railroad, or we suggest, a police service.

The fortunes of the British Transport Police have become inextricably linked with the parlous financial state of the railway industry. The industry is in severe difficulty, under-funded commercially and in need of government help. Not surprisingly, as an industry, it takes commercial judgements, a cut here, a realignment of priorities there, postponement of investment. These are all standard commercial strategies aimed at reducing costs and promoting profitability.

But these commercial strategies do not read across to the police service. The British Transport Police, despite its possible liability for VAT, is not a commercial arm of the railway industry. It is a police service whose professional performance is being benchmarked against other police services. We have to follow a public service ethos, not a commercial imperative. The Department of Transport, Minister, needs to wear two hats.

Wearing one hat it needs to have a relationship with the railway industry which recognises its contribution as a vital part of the transport infrastructure. That is not a matter which concerns this Federation. But what does concern us is that the Department seems unable to recognise that when it comes to dealing with its police service, it should adopt a different hat and a different mindset: one that understands the travelling public's need for security; one that recognises the vital role we fulfil in preventing acts of terrorism and one that keeps our railways running because of our specialist skills.

My Federation believes that it is entirely appropriate that the British Transport Police is accountable to the Department of Transport. The relationship we have with the railway industry is important to both of us. But we should not be governed by the industry; we should be its equal partner. Let me give you a simple example of where I believe we are getting it wrong.

Again I go back to the Her Majesty's Inspectors report. His report noted, without criticism, that theft of passengers' property is not a force priority and that it had soared by 30%. By contrast we are expected by the industry to regard assaults on employees as more serious offences than assaults on the public.

Are we losing sight of our corporate purpose? Is this lack of priority or insensitivity to the safety of the travelling public a further indication that we are becoming industry rather than policing focused? The reality of course is that all assaults are treated with equal police professionalism no matter who the victim is.

Minister, everyone agrees that the British Transport Police role is vital but it is time that we were given the resources to fulfil that role.

Last week's bomb massacre in Madrid must serve to bring focus to the security of our United Kingdom railway network. Two hundred dead and 1500 injured. If, as indications are, this was the evil work of Al Quaida, then we must know that London could just as easily have been the target as Madrid.

Minister, the proper home for the British Transport Police lies within the Department of Transport. But the challenge to your Department is stop thinking about railway money and think about public safety. You and your departmental officials have to start thinking outside the box. Your remit must include greater recognition that the BTP must be given the resources it needs or it simply cannot do the job the public expects and is entitled to.

This is the lesson of Madrid: we are all targets now. The determination of terrorist bodies such as Al Quaida to destroy ordinary civilian lives on a huge scale is without limit. We have been given a preview of what could happen here. All of us need to work together, the various police services, the intelligence agencies and our respective parent government departments if we are to protect our people.