Conference 2005 - Chairman's Speech
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE FEDERATION
SPEECH BY CHAIRMAN: MR ALEX ROBERTSON
0830 HRS ON WEDNESDAY 9TH MARCH 2005 AT THE
MOAT HOUSE HOTEL, YORK
Minister, I am delighted to welcome you to our Conference. Since you took office we have met you regularly. Your readiness to engage in constructive dialogue, even on the most difficult of issues, makes the job of meeting a Minister a pleasure to do business. 
We are particularly indebted for your time as I know that you must leave early for London. I will therefore keep my address very much to the point.
Last night you did us the honour of presenting bravery awards for distinguished and courageous acts by British Transport Police Officers. Policing is a dangerous job. The presentations to our colleagues yesterday were ample evidence of the commitment of officers to react with professionalism and courage to criminal acts. The public have an expectation that they will be protected. Our professional training and our natural instinct is that we will not let then down.
As well as all of us acknowledging the courage of our colleagues, I want also to draw attention to a particular point. One of last night's award winners was stabbed ten times while attempting to arrest a thief. He barely survived the attack. And it's worth noting that he was off-duty when he intervened. His attacker was duly convicted. What alarms me about the incident is that his attacker's sentence from the court was a mere 18 months.
It should have been at least eight years. By any benchmark and for whatever reason the punishment was wholly insufficient. The willingness of officers to disregard their own personal safety creates a two-way contract with society. Officers too expect to be protected through the deliberations of the court.
Officers on or off duty deserve the protection of the law. On this occasion the courts failed this officer and failed the police service generally.
We need a stronger message to go out to knife carriers and knife users. The only alternative will be that off-duty officers will stay off-duty when they see crime - and that's no alternative at all. We must look for support from our Ministers to ensure that courts are aware of disquiet at inadequate sentencing.
It is ironic that we are processing legislation which will imprison suspected terrorists or at least put them under house arrest. The Government has contemplated this extreme measure because they believe it would be in the public interest. Yet people will be incarcerated in prisons or in their own homes not on the availability of evidence before the court but on the basis of intelligence.
This is not the occasion to challenge the wisdom of the Government's anti-terrorism proposals. But we do have the opportunity to examine whether we are being consistent in applying the same critical objectivity to the protection of officers as to members of the public. If we are prepared to lock up suspected wrong doers on the dubious basis of intelligence then surely we can put away people for a very long time who have been convicted on evidence which satisfies a court.
And while I am on about officer protection I know Conference wouldn't be the same if I did not mention jurisdiction.
Our officers now enjoy a measure of a modest expansion in their jurisdiction - a change prompted more by the threat of terrorism than the more mundane reason of a practical policing requirement. Minister, could I ask that a tidier piece of legislation regarding our jurisdiction be located in a more enduring and relevant act?
The existing arrangements are a temporary adjunct to terrorist legislation and are therefore subject to periodic renewal when they should really be made permanent.
A regular concern of this Conference has been how this Force is funded. We have had an ongoing disagreement with the Department on the application of the user pays principle to the funding of a police service which serves to protect the travelling public and the nation's infrastructure.
We remain unconvinced that the narrow interpretation of user pays means only the travelling public adequately reflects the wider benefit to the public or Government. This restrictive definition is preventing Government from taking a more radical look at the financing of the BTP. But no matter how we chose to slice the financial cake it is always helpful if we have a large enough cake to begin with. For now we have a different problem.
Since the beginning of the year it has become quite apparent that there is a serious crisis developing in the provision of funding rather than the system used.
Recent reports by your Department, Minister, by Parliament and particularly by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabularies, make for very dismal reading about the infrastructure of the Force.
They contain praise about our commitment and about our professionalism and that our standards compare favourably with Home Department Forces.
But there is no denying Minister that the British Transport Police is being starved of capital funding. The sums are simple. The Force needs £15.5 million for its capital programme next year. We are being offered only £5.4 million.
Yet already we are committed to almost £8 million in expenditure.
Much of the capital that we need to spend will not only improve essential policing, but will also bring about significant revenue savings - in other words, investing to save. If the Force can be made more efficient and economic we will require less funding in future years and the Force will be more effective.
The Authority has set out four main objectives for the next three years; to reduce crime and tackle its cause; investigate crime and increase the number of offenders brought to justice; promote public safety; and respond to incidents in a way that meets the needs of the travelling public. The members of the Federation would like to tackle these areas as much as anyone, but how can we with such limited resources?
How can the railways become a safer place without spending money? How can we ask officers to spend time investigating a crime without paying them for the hours worked? How can the BTP tackle criminals and terrorists without the necessary funds and resources?
The Authority also, quite reasonably, expects the Force to increase detection rates; increase the visibility of uniformed personnel; improve value for money and increase the partnership with the rail industry. But we cannot deliver improved detection rates without money to buy more cameras, more radios, more computers. To improve value for money, to make this Force more efficient, we must have access to adequate funding.
We cannot cut corners; this must be done properly.
Like the Police Authority, which has been in post for just over a year, the Federation is much exercised by this shortfall in our budget. At the Police Authority meeting only last week the decision on the budget was deferred and I suspect that the end result is that there will be a phased delivery of the budget and it may even be 2008 before we get all the improvements that we need.
It is a characteristic of this government that spending in the public sector is always described as investment in the public services. I would like to see the budget requirements of the BTP similarly regarded, as an investment, in fact an overdue investment in an essential public service.
Since 1999 when I first took office, I have, like my predecessor, campaigned for a vigorous and competent Police Authority - one that would represent effectively, and in the right proportions, the interests of the police service, the public and the railway industry.
We now have such a Police Authority. I congratulate Sir Alistair Graham on the robust manner in which he has steered the Authority. He was brought in to deal with a legacy of financial neglect.
He appears to be expected to work miracles in his stewardship of the Force through the Authority. Instead he has found the cupboard bare.
Since its appointment the Authority has been developing a three-year Strategic Plan to take us to 2008. If we could get what we should really be offered the budget for the plan would be £44m. It is a sizeable sum made up of capital expenditure and revenue.
The creation of the Authority means that capital expenditure is now grant funded through the Department and revenue expenditure is collected through the Train Operating Companies and Network Rail.
Neither the TOCs nor Network Rail have been noted for cheerfully paying up on their police service agreements but they are not my target today.
I am particularly disappointed to have to report that the TOCs have decided to dispute the Chief Constable's budget and have even called in accountants to check its validity. This is a sorry indication of the kind of cooperation that now seems to exist in their mindset and will prove unhelpful if we are to meet our budget deadline.
My concern, like the Police Authority's, is with your Department, Minister.
The Force has a lengthy shopping list of capital projects. These are not whimsical, icing on the cake type proposals. The money is needed for fundamental services and as a response to reports from HMI, the Rail Review White Paper, your Department's Review and criticism from the Select Committee.
We have had to move headquarters as a result of the termination of our lease; we need a radio system which works, especially in key railway stations, we need new voice and data networks and computers, investment in Forensic Science, new vehicles and money to fund the increasing pressure on our resources for counter terrorism. In short, we need all the infrastructure and supporting equipment that sustains a modern police service.
It is not all bad news. On the plus side we have record numbers of recruits coming forward, over 150 in this year alone. But then we don't appear to have the money to pay for uniforms, equipment or the training to put them out on the beat.
Minister, I know that you are very aware of our concerns but I make no apology to adding the voice of the Federation to those of the Police Authority and no doubt our Chief Constable.
Our resources will come under further pressure, as will town centre policing generally, with the introduction of 24 hour drinking. Other than personal experience I am not qualified to comment on the wider social ramifications of this extension of the licensing laws. However, as a police officer of 27 plus years' experience, I and my colleagues do not look upon the new law with any enthusiasm.
A sense of trepidation would be more accurate… a feeling which will become steadily more acute the closer we get to November this year when the new licences will be granted just in time for Christmas.
Excessive availability will lead inevitably to excessive drinking. And even if it does not lead to more frequent collapses in public behaviour, there is no doubt that a police presence will be required on the streets, in some strength, long after sensible people have gone to bed.
For the BTP this will mean numerous people, perhaps severely intoxicated, making their way to railway stations to make their way home - or possibly even to work. A key argument for the staggered closing times is that it will prevent crowds congregating in the streets at a fixed time. Unfortunately nobody seems to have remembered that trains leave at set times so the crowds will inevitably gather at these times at railway stations to catch their transport home.
This is as unhealthy a recipe for public order as we can get. We can expect assaults between members of the public, assaults on railway staff and on police officers to increase dramatically.
The record to date is not good. Since 2003 assaults on staff have increased by over 18 per cent. Most assaults are drink fuelled.
The modest improvement on our detection rate on these assaults is likely to be seriously reversed as our resources are swamped.
With this somewhat pessimistic future ahead of us, you will understand why the Federation should be grateful for the support of Specials and Community Service Officers. However in 1999 the Federation were told that an additional 468 Specials would be recruited.
We can hardly be blamed for being sceptical that such numbers would be available.
Our main concern was that 468 Specials in a Force of just over 2,000 officers would greatly dilute frontline police effectiveness.
It appears that government policy on Specials and now CSOs is here to stay. The Government believes that they do have a role to play in complementing the work of the regular police officers. However, they are no substitute for police officers. People in uniform will always give the public a superficial visual comfort.
But at the end of the day Specials or CSOs have to know what they are doing. The uniform itself has never been enough. I am also unhappy about CSOs and Specials being fielded in large numbers to police travelling football supporters. It is not as if regular officers from the BTP are not available.
I believe the substitution is cost-driven. CSOs are being hired for the weekend from other police authorities rather than pay overtime to regular BTP officers. This is not a sensible use of police resources for core police functions.
This is a shortsighted demoralising policy. It is about policing on the cheap and about deceiving the public into believing that their protection is being maintained.
If we are to have CSOs in the numbers envisaged they must be adequately equipped and trained. Powers of detention need to be used carefully and professionally for nothing will lead to aggressive confrontation quicker than a volatile situation misjudged by amateurs no matter how well intentioned.
A recent survey by the England and Wales Police Federation on the subjects of CSOs is worth quoting.
The survey highlighted such weaknesses in their use as the need for intensive supervision and their inability to practise basis pocket book procedures. CSOs may have their place but management, the public and the Government must be realistic about their capabilities and how meaningful their supporting role will ever be.
There has to be room for co-operation between all members of the police family.
I think the Metropolitan Police Service and the BTP demonstrated that ability to work together only last month when we spoke at a reception aimed at bringing the Olympic Games to London in 2012.
At that reception it was obvious that we shared a common objective and knew how to work together to achieve it. It's that kind of common purpose which we need now between your Department, the railway industry, the Police Authority and the Force.
All of us need to pull together to deliver the quality of policing that the travelling public both needs and deserves.
We have the manpower and the commitment. You Minister have the capital funding which we so desperately need. There are other calls upon the public purse but up there among the priorities must be the essential aim of keeping the railways and the travelling public on the move.
Terrorism is a huge threat. The railway system caters for one billion passenger journeys a year. By its very public access it declares its vulnerability to attack. Our record as a police service is excellent. Since 1991 we have received some 8,000 bomb threats and dealt with them all swiftly and professionally. But if we are to continue with a level of service which commands public confidence and respect then we can only do that through further planned and timely investment.
Since 9/11 the United States government has tripled federal funding for homeland security to a massive and unprecedented $30.5 billion. The FBI has transformed itself into an agency dedicated primarily to the prevention of future terrorist attacks; the US Department of Defence has established a new top level command whose priority is to protect American Homeland. The BTP is a vital element in protecting the UK infrastructure.
We do not have the resources of the US. We may even perceive the threat to us as being different in content and scale. But unless we invest in our own equivalent arrangements for homeland security, the public, especially the travelling public, will be at risk.
Thank you.
