British Transport Police Federation

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

ON WEDNESDAY 8TH MARCH 2006 AT THE
MOAT HOUSE HOTEL, YORK

Minister, I am delighted to welcome you to your first conference with us. I appreciate the pressures on your diary but I do emphasise that these are much valued occasions for the Federation as an opportunity to speak directly and honestly to Government.

As you would have gathered from last night's Bravery Awards being a police officer these days is not the easiest of jobs. We face challenges to our hard earned terms and conditions of employment. The Home Secretary has made it clear that he has yet to learn the lessons of the Sheehy report. On the street and specifically, in our case on the railways, we face personal violence and attack from terrorist fanatics, whose personal regard for other people's lives is only matched by their disregard for their own.

At an individual level, officers accept that there is a remote risk that in their daily duty there is the possibility of confrontation with a crime resulting in their death. The murder of Constable Sharon Beshenivsky shocked the police service and the wider public. Her death reminded us all of the commitment that officers make to uphold the law and to protect the public. And within the past few weeks another woman police officer in Nottingham, WPC Rachel Bown, was callously shot and is lucky to be alive.

It is not lost on my members that only a couple of days before that incident a senior police officer of another force was suggesting that we should wear body armour less often. Such officers should walk the talk more often. Who knows… they might be better informed as a result. I would also suggest that the days when the public were shocked by the sight of police officers in body armour and carrying sidearms are long gone. In fact I would go as far as to say that when a terrorist attack can now happen at any time the public are reassured about their protection by the sight of armed police and that they are comforted more than they are frightened.

In return for that commitment and professionalism we expect Government to honour both the intangible and tangible elements of the police officer's contract with society.

First, I would urge Government to rethink its proposals for changes in the police service in our terms and conditions of pay. I am well aware that the funding of a modern police service with 80 % of the budget going on personnel costs always tempts Government to find savings.

But given the challenges facing officers on the street today it would be false economy to penalise officers in their conditions of service. Demoralised and inadequately rewarded officers do not make for an efficient and confident police service.

Now the British Transport Police may not be in the negotiating frontline with our brother federations of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but as sure as night follows day, any amendments to serving conditions would soon be introduced to the British Transport Police. We will not only watch what happens at Police Negotiating Board with interest but pledge our support to our colleagues.

Further upheaval also faces the federations of England and Wales through the proposal to merge the current 43 forces into a dozen or so. The British Transport Police are not involved in this enormous process of organisational cannibalism, thank goodness, but there will be enough knock-on effects to give us some anxiety.

And, of course, it has not stopped the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair reviving his ambition of a single police service for London. Sir Ian is clearly a man who should avail of a counsel wiser than his own. The concept of a single force, a perfection of joined up policing has to be attractive and should be carefully scrutinised.

Well, it has been looked at several times now and it is time that Government told Sir Ian and his fellow travellers that the arguments for a single London police service simply do not stack up.

For a start they are predicated upon a misunderstanding of what happened in New York in the late 90s. The merger of the New York Police Transit Department into the New York Police Department was accompanied by the recruitment of 7,000 more police officers. It was the additional recruitment which led to the fall in that City's crime statistics. It was that new and sustained focus by Mayor Guiliani which drove the police service into taking on crime and at all levels with all its causes.

The lesson to be learnt is not that amalgamation works; it is expansion of resources to support focus that brings success. Incidentally, the latest word from New York is that they are beginning to rethink the wisdom of doing away with the separate Transit Police.

If you hear a hollow laugh around this room at that, Minister, I'm sure you will forgive us. For that realisation that perhaps the retention of a specialist railway police service has considerable merit needs to be better understood in all political and police quarters.

I am confident that the current Department for Transport review of the British Transport Police will come to the same conclusion as the previous four reviews, all of them conducted within the past five years.

Minister, I am sure you will forgive me if I express frustration and dismay that this Force continues to be the focus of official scrutiny which challenges our very existence never mind whether we are appropriately resourced and structured for our task.

All the reviews to date have recognised that a specialist police force is essential and fundamental for policing the railways. Secondly, those reviews have found that we are a highly specialised Force operating the length and breadth of Britain performing to the highest quality standards.

Now I am not saying that police forces of any type should be allowed to coast along without periodic review or re-assessment but surely four reviews in five years is excessive - it is almost as if there is a determination to find some fatal flaw in the purpose and value of our existence.

I cannot believe that is true either and I would encourage the Government to look to the comments of former Transport Minister, John Speller, when he noted in his 2001 consultation paper 'Modernising the British Transport Police' he said:

"The British Transport Police's operations are fully integrated with Home Office Police Forces and they provide policing services to exactly the same high professional standard. In addition to providing specialist policing for the railway environment, they have developed particular expertise in …. protection for terrorism, management of large travelling groups such as football supporters and control of anti-social behaviour in enclosed areas."

"The Government therefore considers that the national railway network is best protected by a unified police force providing a dedicated, specialist service and able to give a proper priority to the policing of the railways."

It gets better. In 2004, the Transport Select Committee offered the following comment …"The railways are a specialised environment, with specialised needs and need a specialised Force … Unless there is a national force dedicated to policing the rail network, the task will not be given the priority it needs."

The White Paper, "The Future of Rail" published by the Department of Transport in 2004 stated: "The industry and passengers also receive significant benefits from a dedicated force, particularly from its approach to managing incidents, which is aimed at minimising delay. The Government confirms its support for the British Transport Police continuing in its role as a specialist rail police force."

Last month, Minister, the Select Committee on Transport invited evidence on the role of the British Transport Police and the Federation contributed its own thoughts which I will share with you now.

By and large we support the findings of all the previous reviews. But we were at pains to point out as we do now that endless reviews bring uncertainty and do not make for a very happy and productive police service.

It is not just that the reviews conclude that we are indispensable, secondly that we are good at what we do but thirdly, when the quality of our systems and of our officers were tested not once but twice last July we rose superbly to the occasion.

Our railway system is a key target for terrorism especially in London where a successful attack if particularly bloody will command the world's headlines for days afterwards. Only the British Transport Police is capable of minimising the disruption to the smooth running of our trains. Our ability to keep that railway infrastructure protected and operational denies the terrorists the damaging impact on the economy they seek to inflict. Just as importantly, keeping the transport infrastructure running gives millions of rail passengers the confidence they need that the Government is still in charge and that terrorism will be defeated.

Public confidence is at the heart of why we have a separate specialist railway police service. First, there is a straight correlation about how safe the public feel on the railways and how many choose to travel as their daily commute. More than any other police force the British Transport Police has always been aware that there is a commercial imperative to its purpose. The train operation companies pay for our services. The quality of our policing encourages passengers on to trains to their benefit and to the betterment of the environment.

Passengers feel safer from crime on our railways. The rising level of violent crime is a real threat. And our concern for safety on the railways must also extend, quite properly, to all railway employees. Our pioneering use of DNA testing has done much to deter the despicable habit of some passengers from spitting at employees or our officers.

As a different example of efficiency the British Transport Police can clear a railway line after a fatality within ninety minutes and without loss of sensitivity to the incident. By contrast a county force would take at least four hours.

The key point facing those who argue for a single force for London is to understand that the existing arrangements for joined up policing work. Secondly the downside of such an amalgamation is the effective destruction of specialist railway policing. This Force, as our Chief Constable has noted, is hitting its performance targets better than most other forces… as Mr Johnston so neatly put it…" who could do a better job?"

The support of the Police Authority under Sir Alistair Graham in rejecting the argument for ending the BTP has been very much welcomed by the Federation and has been typical of the robust stand he has taken on this and other issues in promoting the interest of the BTP and the railway travelling public.

At present on a journey from Aberdeen to London a passenger will pass through the jurisdictions of at least 12 police forces. Should a passenger be robbed in Aberdeen but not realise it until London, whose responsibility will it be to investigate the crime if there were no British Transport Police? Well the answer is "everybody's and nobody's".

In practice there would be no investigation as in the general scheme of things each of the twelve forces would regard the incident as too marginal to justify the necessary resources. Should the Home Secretary's re-organisation of the police forces go ahead there will still be at least five or six jurisdictions for that train journey so no change there then that will bring comfort to the unfortunate passenger. Fear of crime will drive passengers off the trains onto the buses or worse of all back into their cars.

Although we have a very direct relationship with the Train Operating Companies it is not without its own difficulties. The Federation agrees with the recent comments of our Chief Constable. Too many of the ToCs see us as a cost to be reduced rather than an asset to be promoted to encourage passenger growth.

I specifically exclude the London Underground from that criticism. Their understanding of the relationship between providing funding for additional officers is a model of forward thinking.

For others it is an annual grind of trying to persuade the ToCs to cough up their share of the British Transport Police budget. The amount of senior management time spent on endless cajoling of the ToCs is a disgrace and a more enlightened funding formula is overdue.

Surely we can arrive at an arrangement where the Government's interpretation of the 'user pays' principle can be given teeth - perhaps through the introduction of financial penalty clauses if contributions are not made as they fall due. It is worth noting that the media take a greater interest in the performance of this Force largely because we came into the spotlight through the tragic events of last July. I know that interest has encouraged at least one Train Operating Company to get up to date with its payments to the force.

It is not as if the Force has not played its bit in reducing its own £200m per year costs. We have relocated to new headquarters, reducing our annual rent costs by over one third. But a modern police service needs continuing investment in technology and equipment. Last year we hit 9 out of 9 of our operational targets, this year it will be 11 out of 12. Going forward we, as much as the athletes, will need to be at the top of our game for the 2012 London Olympics. This will be a major logistical challenge on its own without the additional problem of being the world's prime terrorist target - unless there is a significant improvement in global security.

I want here to make a comment about the messages which Government send to terrorists. The Government, quite rightly, expresses determination to crack down on terrorists and never to let their atrocities go unpunished. These words are easily said - and at the time are no doubt uttered with heartfelt sincerity. But politics is a flexible game and what seemed sensible sentiments at the time of the atrocity can be easily and quickly forgotten in the cynical pragmatism of politics.

And so it was with the Government's sordid attempt to introduce the 'On the Runs' Bill in January. Legislation which would effectively given amnesty to terrorists who had committed crimes and atrocities in Northern Ireland and here in Britain.

Every single federation wrote to Government in protest. Apart from the obvious betrayal of the contract between the police service and society we have to ask what kind of message was that sending to terrorists that sooner or later with sufficient passage of time, terrorists could be allowed back into Britain and with a judicial sleight of hand the slate would be wiped clean?

The bill was dropped for the wrong reason of Sinn Fein objecting to the inclusion of security force personnel within its scope. But the Government should not lose sight of the fact that the UK police service and our European counterparts, the representatives of three- quarters of a million police officers found the bill offensive. That kind of legislation has no place on our statute books if we are to defeat terrorism whether it is home grown or globally inspired.

Minister, the UK police service is on the cusp of major reorganisation. Against that changing background the British Transport Police itself does not know whether it is coming or going within the overall police plan.

Rather than questioning our existence there is a developing argument as to whether in the face of the mounting terrorist threat, and the physical isolation of British Transport Police officers when dealing with violence on railway stations and in carriages, that our own officers should be armed.

The irony is not lost on our officers that while we are superbly equipped and trained for dealing with international terrorism we have only the basic personal equipment to deal with the almost daily violent confrontation.

Can I mention one final point? The new Police Pension regulations coming into effect from the beginning of next month have overlooked the need to facilitate the transfers between the BTP and other police forces. Because of what I can only assume is an oversight an officer joining our force from the Home Department forces and vice-versa will be treated as a new recruit. He or she will have to serve an extra five years to qualify for a full pension. This requirement for additional service will deter if not totally eliminate movement between forces at all levels. This cannot be a desirable outcome. Movement of experienced personnel between forces is not only healthy but should be encouraged.

I invite you Minister to have this aspect of the regulations reviewed so that the police service and individual officers may benefit through transfer between forces.