In the National Archives sits a rather tatty file from the
Railway Executive Committee (1939-1945).
It is accompanied by a note that says that the conservation department
has been advised of its condition and that it will be subject of further
evaluation. The note was added over
twenty years ago. Looking after our
national records is a long term process.
The contents of the file shed much light on the under researched subject
of the arrangements for policing the railways and docks of the UK during the
Second World War.
National emergencies create the need for emergency
legislation. This was not an area of
government that was particularly well handled in the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic but a
war that included a very real risk of invasion meant that the scale of
emergency powers granted to government ministers and officials is hard now to
imagine. Not since the days of Charles I
has so much power been given to a few individuals. The fact that these powers were used with
restraint and were largely given up at the earliest opportunity is a tribute to
the people who governed the country during the 1940s.
The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gave Ministers the
powers to make Regulations. This was a
wide ranging power with the numerous examples of what are now described as
‘Henry VIII’ clauses, ie Regulations
could amend Acts of Parliament. The
main product of the Act was the Defence (General Regulations) 1939. These Regulations in turn allowed for the
creation of further Regulations.
Tracking the introduction of the Regulations is not easy as they were
often amended and updated according to circumstances. The most well known regulation was 18B. This allowed for the internment of
individuals without trial in the interests of the security of the realm. Others covered virtually every aspect of
wartime life in the UK; from enforcing the blackout to the supply of dried peas
and lentils and everything in between.
At the start of the war many railway and dock police
officers joined the armed services and potential new recruits were more likely
to join, or be conscripted, into the forces.
But this was a time when these specialist police forces were busier than
they had ever been. The threat of
invasion, the movement of large numbers of people (including servicemen) and
the transport of food and vital war materials, put considerable pressure on the police. The Black Market made the acquisition of
goods by larceny all the more attractive and the transport infrastructure was
the ripest target of all. Policemen (and
a significant number of policewomen) worked long hours with few rest days. By
1941 the railways and docks needed more police urgently. In answer to the pleas of the railway and
dock companies the Minister for War
Transport made Regulations under the powers given by Reg 29B of the 1939
Regulations.
The Public Utility Undertakings Police (Employment and
Offences) Order 1941 (No 1590) must count as one of the most arcane pieces of
legislation to touch the police service and one of the most severe. It did two things. Firstly, it meant that serving police
officers in any of the railway or dock forces (including forces such as the
Port of London Authority) could not leave the service without the permission of
the Chief of Police or a Minister and, secondly, it created criminal penalties
for disobedience to orders or unauthorised absence. Magistrates
could fine officers £10 for these offences or send officers to prison for one
month (or both). Similar arrangements had been introduced to
local constabularies and the PU (E&O) Order applied them to the railway etc
police. Since the Railways Act 1921 restrictions on the lives of railway police
officers had been achieved by conditions of employment and this is a rare
example of statutory restrictions being put in place.
It is probably the first time that the office of Chief of
Police in a Railway Company is mentioned in legislation.
The railway companies recruited additional wartime
constables. Some of them had been
directed to these roles by employment exchanges before the Regulations came
into force. The inability to leave was
imposed on all officers whenever they had joined. This had a major impact on the lives of many
individuals who felt that they had been trapped by the law. There was an appeals process and this is the
subject of the file mentioned above.
However few exceptions were made. At the time the railway police were not well
paid (less than £3 per week for a new constable), this at a time when other
working class occupations could bring in £4-5 per week. The Regulations had the effect of keeping
some officers in poverty that they could have escaped if they had been free to
exploit the labour market.
We do not know how many officers applied to leave the
service and how many of these requests were granted by Chiefs of Police. All we can see is some of the paperwork that
passed between the Ministry of War Transport and the Railway Executive
Committee regarding certain appeals. It
is clear that the appeals were taken seriously and that a process was followed,
but the presumption was that being in a railway or dock force was a commitment
until further notice.
Examining a sample of the cases gives an indication of the difficult
position that some officers found themselves in:
In May 1942 Pc 130 of the London Passenger Transport Board
(LPTB) Police appealed against the refusal of the Chief Officer of Police to
release him to join the armed services. He
complained that he would be contributing more to the war effort by joining the
Military Police than by “standing on an Underground Station for a tour of duty,
which is eight hours, the only variation being …..escort duty..during the
payment of wages”. He had been accepted
by the army and had been graded A1 fit. Before
the appeal was determined he was allowed to leave after the intervention of
Lord Ashfield, chairman of the LPTB.
There was particular discontent in the South Wales
docks. Pc D made repeated requests to
the Chief Officer of the Great Western Railway Police (GWR) for release. George Stephens, the long serving Chief
Officer of the GWR Police turned him down on each occasion so he appealed to
the Minister. His reason for wanting to
leave was shared by many appellants. Put
simply, the railway police did not pay well and war or no war families needed
to be fed and housed. In his appeal to the Minister he outlined his
weekly budget in some detail to show that his wage of £3-14-1 were not enough
to cover his outgoings. In other correspondence
he reported that he had the chance of work that paid £6 per week and he queried
whether the retention of men (although he was not one of them) who wished to
join the forces was just. In desperation
his wife wrote to the Chief of Police in January 1943 asking “surely there is a
HUMAN side to it as well as so much officialdom?” She also raised the risk of ’sticky hands’,
concerned that the men in the docks would be tempted by goods in transit but
being very clear that her husband was an honest man. The appeal was unsuccessful.
In his frustration at not being able to join the Admiralty
Rescue Tug Service (a relatively well paid position) another officer (Constable P) at Barry Docks wrote to the First
Lord of the Admiralty. He had applied
for release to take up better paid work on several previous occasions. His appeal was unsuccessful.
A request for release by an officer (Pc H) at Swansea docks in July
1943 was initially turned down. The
officer had been approached by a large Trades Union to run a care home, having
previously done so before the war. It
was pointed out that the post required skills that were in short supply and
would also offer employment to his wife as Matron. In granting the officer’s release the Ministry
sought to reassure the Chief of Police about the loss of his men: “(The CoP)…. may remain easy in his mind as
the Minister cannot imagine circumstances arising in which an equally strong
case could be made out” (Letter 15 July 1943).
The extent of the labour shortages felt by the wartime
railway police is clear in another appeal from a GWR officer – this time in
central London (Smithfield Goods Depot in the City). In a letter from the GWR to the Railway
Executive Committee about the case of Pc P the company points out that it had
over 50 vacancies for constables. The
appeal was unsuccessful.
Another unsuccessful appeal was based on the fact that the
work was ‘too heavy’ for a man of the appellant’s age. Pc D worked for the LNER
Police at Leeds. This officer had joined
on leaving the army in 1943 but by July 1945, aged 49, he was desperate to
leave for lighter, better paid and more regular work.
When the war ended in 1945 officers were still bound by the Regulations. One officer (Pc H) had been sent from the
Motive Power Department of the London Midland and Scottish Railway to join the
police department of the LMS in 1940.
His attempts to return to railway duties were frustrated by the Chief of
Police. By October 1945, some months
after the end of the war, he appealed to his MP for help in getting back to his
railway job. He complained that his
duties consisted of watching goods being loaded. He had to wait a further three months before
he could escape from policing.
The problem for the police was that the end of the war did
not mean the end of a shortage of men.
The railway companies therefore requested that Order 1590 be extended
for another year. The new government was
however uncomfortable with the idea of compulsion and from January 1946 normal
employment rules applied.
Officers who had served as wartime reserve or specials in
railway, dock and canal forces were not entitled to the gratuity or war credits
granted to officers in other forces nor did they have the same access to injury
compensation schemes. This was seen as a
great injustice and some officers complained to their MPs – one group pointing
out that they had been armed throughout the war. The government’s view on entitlement didn’t
change and many of those that missed out were left with a feeling of
resentment.
The 1939 Regulations were relaxed gradually but the last
batch did not expire until 1964.
Police officers serving today would be rather shocked if
they had been told during the pandemic that they could not leave their jobs and
that they could be prosecuted for failing to obey orders or attend for duty. During the ongoing debates about the problems
seen in some forces in the last couple of years it has been suggested that some
misconduct offences should have criminal powers of prosecution attached. Perhaps a lesson could be learned from what
officers endured in the Second World War.
Philip Trendall
May 2023
NOTES
1.
The nomenclature around police officers in
railway, dock and canal forces is confusing.
In the railway forces (including those officers employed by railway
companies in docks) all officers were technically special constables as this is
how they were described in the Acts of Parliament authorising their appointment
(with the exception of officers serving in the LPTB Police). They were however full time, paid
officers. In addition ‘special’
constables were employed during times of national emergency (the World Wars and
the General Strike etc). In nearly all
cases these officers were paid at the going national railway police rate (which
was generally less than that received by local forces). In some records these officers are described
as ‘wartime specials’ or war reserve officers (although they were not part of
the war reserve as seen in local forces).
The Regulations applied to ALL officers in the specified forces, whether
or not they had been recruited for wartime tasks – therefore for clarity I have
described all officers as ‘PC’.
2.
The bodies of constables (forces) covered by the
Regulation were:
London North Eastern Railway
London Midland and Scottish
Railway
Great Western Railway
Southern Railway
London Passenger Transport Board
Lee Conservancy Board
Port of Bristol Authority
Falmouth Docks and Engineering
Company
Sharpness Docks and Gloucester
and Birmingham Navigation
Port of London Authority
Manchester Ship Canal Company
Milford Docks Company
Tyne Improvement Commission
Workington Harbour and Dock Board
3.
The names of all the officers mentioned are available
in the file which is open to the public.
4.
As always I am grateful for the advice and assistance
of members of the British Transport Police History Group (BTPHG). This blog however is not an official
publication of the BTPHG. The opinions
and conclusions it contains are mine alone – as are any errors.
5.
Comments and alternative views are welcome.
References
The National Archives AN 2/304. REC Recruitment of Police/Conduct of Police (Viewed April 2023).
The Emergency (Defence) Act 1939
Comments
Post a Comment