Law and History 2: JUST THE SAME AS OTHER FORCES?

 

Reading through this before posting makes me fear that it is not historical enough for this blog and trespasses into contemporary issues.  So be it.  But I do feel it necessary to remind readers that this blog does NOT represent the view of the BTPHG.  These ramblings are mine alone.

It is rarely accurate to say that history repeats itself, but it is true that somethings that we think are settled in the past return to challenge us again.

When I was a serving police officer in BTP I saw a steady evolution in the status of the force.  The achievements of officers, particularly in facing the ‘decade of disasters’ (1980s) and the acknowledged expertise of BTP in dealing with certain classes of activity (terrorism, theft person, theft of goods in transit, major incident response, football disorder etc) all led to an increasing recognition that BTP was an equal member of the police family.  In concrete terms this had been marked by the recommendation of the Wright Committee into the pay of Non Home Department Police Forces (1979).  Wright recommended that the pay of BTP officers should be fixed at the same rates as those applying to territorial forces.  Training and qualifications for promotion and specialisms were, by the 1970s, the same as Home Office forces (although the Met did not fall in line re promotion standards or basic training for quite a while afterwards).  As long ago as 1974 the Department of Transport was arguing with the Home Office that BTP officers should have full policing powers on London Transport buses.  The main plank of the argument was that BTP officers did the same training as everybody else with additional training on top to meet the needs of policing the railway.  The DoT lost the argument and no additional powers were granted.  I will explore that particular saga in another blog but the point is that for several generations of BTP officers the basic standards followed were those set by the Home Office.

The trouble is that none of these developments were set in the stone tablets of legislation.  There is no legal requirement for BTP officers to be paid the same as other officers (indeed BTP officers have always lost out in respect of allowances for example).  There is no requirement for local forces to accept BTP officers on transfer.  BTP has a legislative framework that is separate to that which supports other forces.  BTP is not covered by the Police Act 1996 (except where specifically included) – no more than it was by the Police Acts of 1964 or 1946.  Police Regulations do not apply to BTP officers.  The only mention in current Police Regulations (2003) is to require forces to ‘accept’ the service etc of a BTP officer who joins (note not transfers to) a police force.  This was a hard won privilege that had been enjoyed by the Port of London Police for decades.  Regulations covering BTP officers can be made by the British Transport Police Authority.  The last time I looked the only regulations that the BTPA have made are those concerning misconduct and performance.  These regs mirror, as they must, those that cover other police forces.

The law around jurisdiction is different (and very complicated) for BTP and there are endless constraints on the exercise of BTP powers (including some in a Bill currently passing through Parliament).  BTP officers are employees, constables in other forces are not.  Last year the Home Office opposed the inclusion of BTP in the (very weak) provisions around the Police Covenant.  They even chose to ignore the public consultation that was very much in favour of the inclusion of the force.  After a lot of pressure from several representative bodies BTP was included only at the last minute.

But despite all these differences the functions of a BTP officer and the challenges they face have always been so similar as to accord an equality of status.  But recently this has shifted in the wrong direction

In some ways BTP has always wanted to have its cake and eat it.  It wanted the protections and perks that the Home Office gave other forces but it enjoyed the freedom that sitting outside that domain  gave the force.  Over the years this led the force to cherry pick the bits of advice and guidance that it wanted to follow and to ignore the bits that didn’t suit.  For example BTP Police Search Advisors have always been qualified to national standards but search team members were, until recently, trained against internal standards.  The fact that the internal course was probably better is not relevant.  It was an example of BTP going it alone.  While for half a century BTP officers have attended whatever initial training that the Home Office has directed and taken part in national promotion exams it has always held back on the appointment of chief officers – ignoring the national regulations and appointing both those who were fully qualified and some who were not.  This has not endeared the force to those at the centre of policing.  To some this was evidence that somehow BTP were not ‘real’ or could not be trusted.  I once had to explain to Home Office officials why BTP opted out of the national requirements for chief officers and they showed me statements by BTP Chief Constables that from ‘now on’ the rules would be fully followed……….they were not impressed that at that time another unqualified appointment had just been made.

Personally and professionally I have always regarded BTP officers as good, and as bad, as any random sample of officers from other forces.  I was always proud of the work of the Force Training Centre and of the officers we seconded into ‘central service’ to work in the training establishments and central units of policing throughout Great Britain.  Of course I am hardly an objective observer but I wanted to make my inherent bias clear.  I do recall the story of a meeting about the introduction of the OSPRE exam.  A civil servant queried whether or not BTP should be allowed to take part.  It was pointed out that the force already took part in national examinations and, more to the point, that one of the officers leading the OSPRE development was a BTP Inspector.  He later went on to write the promotion manuals for many years.

BTP has always been fond of recruiting officers that have retired from other forces.  Sitting outside Home Office pension restrictions made this easy.  Most of these recruits brought tremendous experience and knowledge to their roles in BTP, becoming vital to the development of the force.  Others were very much in the post-twilight years of their careers.  In the late 1980s the Sunday Times quoted an officer as describing FHQ as being an ‘Elephants Graveyard’.   The ability to transfer in and out of BTP is important. Actually, this is true of all forces.   Healthy organisations benefit from the movement of staff, the exchange of experience and ideas is important for the whole police service.  In too greater numbers tranferees can dilute railway policing expertise, it is a question of balance. Moreover it has always been easier to transfer into BTP than to join another force on lateral transfer.  Pension complications for mid career officers were and are a challenge.  The BTP pension schemes and the Homes Office arrangements are very different.  By the end of the nineties a formula for transfer had been agreed.  It was complex.  Indeed, for several years I used it in CBRN presentations when talking about nerve agents and only twice did anybody notice (one of them a CBRN instructor I am pleased to say)  It was functional but it didn’t last very long.  It was overtaken by the developments in world of pensions. As retired officers we would do well to remember that we benefit from a scheme that is far more generous than that populated by serving officers.  This is slightly ironic as many of us spent 30 years moaning about it.

So we have moved from a position where BTP had (almost) de facto recognition of equality to one where the new reality is that BTP is at arm’s length from the rest of the police service. 

A couple of months ago I did an exercise (as part of another piece of work, I am not yet sad enough to do it for fun) where I checked the acceptance of BTP officers for transfer to Home Department forces.   I looked at 20 forces. There was about a 50:50 split.  Half of them would either accept BTP transfers or would accept transfers on a case by case basis.  The other half declined all such applications.  I looked back at these results today and I note that there has been a shift in favour of the ‘not accept’ category.  Forces that would not accept BTP officers include:  The Metropolitan Police, Merseyside, South Yorks and Essex.  Remember that this has taken place against a backdrop of serious police shortages, massive recruiting campaigns and a government funded ‘uplift’ in police numbers (no funding for BTP of course, and the uplift will not replace the numbers cut by the same government, but that’s politics).  Many forces are struggling to recruit.  The decrease, in real terms, in police pay is a major factor (shades of Edmund Davis and Wright).  In these circumstances one would have thought that forces would welcome candidates who are trained and experienced in public facing policing (as opposed to the security focused policing conducted by other Non Home Department forces).  One of the stumbling blocks is a simple one.  BTP no longer delivers training to recruits in the manner required by the College of Policing.  Therefore, in the opinion of many forces officers trained by BTP require full student officer training on transfer.

There is considerable debate around the latest model of initial police training which aims to professionalise the police service by requiring all entrants to be graduates or to be working towards a degree on an apprenticeship scheme.  The situation has been further complicated by an announcement by the Home Secretary that she wishes to see other routes in as well.  It doesn’t matter where one sits in this debate.  The College of Policing is the agency that decides.  BTP has chosen not to follow the standard set by the College and all else flows from this decision.  It is immediately attractive to the force (but bear in mind I have no insight or knowledge of current force thinking)  because there are large numbers of potential recruits that are deterred by the degree route.  But what of the future?  I am sure that this is has been considered by the strategic leaders of BTP.  In years to come BTP officers will be told (as people were in the past) ‘you can’t transfer at XX rank because you have never completed an approved course of student officer training’.  This will ensure that cross force transfers will be an entirely one way traffic.  There is an alternative view.  BTP could be the leaders of the pack.  A lot of forces are uncomfortable with the idea of the new scheme and recently the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary has announced that they are to exploit the Home Secretary’s announcement and to run 15 week recruit training alongside the new PEQF system.  The reason that they can do this can be found in the licensing arrangements with the College of Policing.  BTP of course are not offering both options and are licensed only for the old scheme of training.  All this is a far cry from the days of District Training Centres and training is only one of the reasons why BTP transfers are not widely accepted.

I am very interested in the historical and constitutional aspects of the BTP and its predecessors.  I did think I was seeing history in the making when a project was started by the then Home Secretary in 2013 to bring about a machinery of government change that would have moved BTP to the Home Office with a view to ironing out, one by one, the many legislative issues that affect the force (we were going through the trauma of amending the Firearms Act to allow BTP officers to carry guns and taser without individual certificates).  It was a false dawn.  Bigger factors ended the project. Perhaps I should have known that it wouldn’t go anywhere when I was told that although a BTP warrant card meant that I could wander around the Home Office without an escort, to get a door pass I needed to produce proof of identity and that a BTP warrant card did not have the same status as a ‘police warrant card’ and perhaps I could supply a copy of a gas bill instead?   

Our former Chief Constable Desmond O’Brien used to say that ‘the force needs to decide what it wants to be’.  He was right. The price of BTP enjoying the same status as other forces is that operates under the same restrictions.  Perhaps then the laws they constrain BTP will be amended.

My locus for commenting on the past is that of an amateur historian and researcher.  My views on the current and future position of the force are those of a saloon bar commentator, with all the caveats that this status implies.  But current policy soon fades and becomes history and in doing so falls into the lap of historians.  Let’s see what this looks like in 10 years time.