THE BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE AUTHORITY - THE CHOICE OF WORDS IN THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR MEMBERS

 

                                Image: BTPA

 

British Transport Police Authority

The governance of police forces is a tricky subject.  The recent announcement of the abolition of Police and Crime Commissioners is a case in point.  Striking the balance between the operational independence of chief constables and the need for accountability is a tough nut to crack and is one that has occupied the minds of politicians and academics for nearly 200 years.

The issue is even more complicated with Non Home Department Forces (NHDPFs) where  legislation is often silent on the subject and the interests of the employing body may not automatically align with the public interest.

Both the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the British Transport Police have statutory authorities.

An authority for the British Transport Police was created by s18 Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.  It exists to: “to ensure the efficient and effective policing of the railways”. In particular:

              (1)The Authority shall secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force—

(a)to be known as the British Transport Police Force, and

(b)to police the railways.

(2)In particular, the Authority shall defray the expenses of the Police Force.

(3)In this Part “the Police Force” means the British Transport Police Force. (s20)

 

BTPA appoints and employs the constables of the BTP who are under the direction and control of the Chief Constable, (although special constables are appointed by the Chief Constable).

Members of the Authority are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport.  During the discussions that took place before the legislation was drafted many concerns were expressed about private companies having an undue influence over the force – especially as they were to be required to pay a large proportion of the costs of the force.  One of the reasons for having an Authority was to act as a firewall between BTP and the organisations that stump up the cash.  In theory it is the BTPA that funds the force, using funds raised from railway operators and elsewhere.  The Act requires that members of BTPA come from certain groups, viz:

 

1)The Secretary of State shall so far as is reasonably practicable ensure that the membership of the Authority includes—

(a)at least four persons who have knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons travelling by railway,

(b)at least four persons who have knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons providing railway services,

(c)a person who has knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of employees of persons providing railways services,

(e)a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in Scotland and who is appointed following consultation with the Scottish Ministers,

(f)a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in Wales and who is appointed following consultation with the National Assembly for Wales, and

(g)a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England.

(Schedule 4 para2)

 

Note that there are four appointments requiring  experience relating to the interests of railway operators and only one  with knowledge and experience of the interests of railway employees.  This imbalance is dwarfed by the fact that the interests of  millions of passengers are voiced by the same number of members as those with knowledge of the  handful of operators.

I like the idea that there are people who could claim, for example,  to be “a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in England” (1(g)a).

It is (1) (b) that interests me today:  “Persons with knowledge and experience in relation to the interests of persons providing railway services”.  Members of the Authority are there as individuals, not as representatives of any body or organisation.  They hold individual public offices.  There are those in the industry that believe that being made to pay for policing is unfair and that while they have to do it they should have some controlling influence.  This has always been the case of course,  but the richest railway baron has no more claim on the services of the force than an ordinary commuter.  The duties of a constable do not recognise distinctions between citizens when it comes to upholding the law.  Of course it is essential that the experience and views of those that operate the railway are taken into account.  They are vital partners in the world of railway policing but it is essential that they do not see themselves as ‘employing’ the police for their own purposes.  In the context of BTP  someone once pointed out  that ‘you can pay for a police force, but you can’t buy one’.

The Department for Transport, in talking of funding for BTP, describes the industry contribution as the ‘user pays’ principle, ie that railway operators must pay towards the costs of the force via the BTPA.  It is a phrase that grates on some of us.  Who is a ‘user’ of BTP services?  Most users are, of course, ordinary passengers or victims of crime.  The phrase perhaps says something about the attitude of DfT to BTP.

Operational independence  is an essential ingredient of public confidence in policing and is an essential cog in the policing functions of the criminal justice system.  I have no evidence that this independence is impeded by the current arrangements for BTP.  True,  I haven’t seen the force prosecute a railway company for quite a while but perhaps it hasn’t been necessary.  As an aside BTP was in the vanguard of the changes that resulted in the creation of the modern offence of corporate manslaughter after several attempts by the force to prosecute railway companies had mixed success.  Under the pre 2003 arrangements for the force I recall BTP interviewing  under caution a member of its own police committee (as it then was), demonstrating clearly the independence of the force.  BTP’s investigations into the King’s Cross Fire was another example where the force demonstrated that it would not be cowed by its paymasters, although it was a set of circumstances that was far from easy.

All of this came to mind when I saw that the DfT are currently advertising for members of the BTPA who have a knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons providing railway services.  Except that’s not how they have chosen to describe these posts.  The advert reads:  “BRITISH TRANSPORT POLCIE AUTHORITY INDUSTRY MEMBERS X 2”.

 Industry members??? .

The advert and accompanying notes go further.  They want applicants to have ‘current senior experience of the operation of trains/tracks’.  This wording excludes the vast majority of people with railway experience – including many who would have a sound understanding the policing needs of public transport.  Rather worrying, from my perspective, is how these appointments are characterised as being industry representatives.  The Secretary of State’s covering letter (which I doubt she has seen) speaks of representing the views of the railway industry and this is echoed in the note provided by the current Chair of the Authority.  He goes on to refer to BTP as the largest of the three infrastructure police forces.  A descriptor not known to legislation and one that omits to mention that BTP constables protect the public by serving the Crown – they are not creatures of railway operators.

There is no mention in the recruitment advert that these posts are individually held and that the holders must uphold the Nolan Principles (although I expect this is mentioned somewhere in the detailed literature).  They are not appointed to act as advocates for the industry but to act in the best interests of the public, even if those interests are contrary to the whims, wants and needs of their employers.     As a railway passenger I don’t see my interests always aligning with those of the companies that provide the service, I suspect that a similar position is to be found in railway policing.

Perhaps I have missed something.  People like me, who take an interest in such things, are possibly, over sensitive. But the principle of independence is an important one.  The question of governance is a challenge that needs confronting.  The latter issue is one that applies to all police forces.

If you are one of the very small group of people who are qualified to apply for these public appointments then the advert can be found at:  https://apply-for-public-appointment.service.gov.uk/roles/9062 

 

December 2025

 

 

WHY DO NHDPFs GET MISSED OUT WHEN LEGISLATION IS DRAFTED? (Updated version)

 

WHY DO NON HOME DEPARTMENT POLICE FORCES GET MISSED WHEN LEGISLATION IS BEING DRAFTED?

Note: The Home Department is the traditional name for the Home Office and the Home Secretary is technically the Secretary of State for the Home Department.  In this and other pieces I tend to use the titles interchangeably.  I hope that by confusing my readers I can distract them from the boring nature of the blog itself.

This blog is an updated version of a note prepared in August 2024

 

In research understanding  context is vital . 

The need for context came to mind recently when I was asked to answer a question about the position of Non Home Department Police forces (NHDPF) and their extant constitutional position.  I have to be careful in tackling such enquiries as I am not a lawyer and can claim no qualification in academic research.  All I can offer is a lay opinion heavily influenced by my studies as an amateur historian and as an observer of some of the more arcane aspects of policing.

The question I was asked included ‘why do the government forget NHDPFs when drafting  legislation’? 

The answer has, I think, two parts.

Firstly there are plenty of examples where the process of drafting has, in error, missed out NHDPFs.  A good example can be found in the process of railway privatisation in the 1990s when those charged with pulling together the hugely complex legislation to divest the state of ownership of its railway undertakings overlooked the legislation that gave British Transport Police (BTP) some of its powers.  A Bill was rushed through Parliament in 24 hours to preserve the (rather unsatisfactory) status quo. (1)  Other examples touching BTP include provisions around football banning orders, road traffic enforcement at level crossings, possession of firearms and counter terrorism stop and search powers – all of which were subject to later inclusionary amendments in primary legislation. 

The Police Act 1996 has been amended several times to extend parts of the Act to some NHDPFs, in certain circumstances.  All this creates a complicated backcloth to the work of these forces.

The reasons why NHDPFs are ‘forgotten’ are many but the most common causative issue is the use of language in drafting.  NHDPFs are not ‘police forces’, except in so far as their parent Acts allow them to be.  The term ‘police force’ is strictly defined, (for convenience reference here is only to England and Wales), both by the Police Act 1996 and by the Interpretation Act 1978. (2) Consequently NHDPFs are not included in legislation that relates to police forces, police areas, chief officers of police etc, unless they are specifically included.  Civil Servants drafting legislation need to take great care that they are creating the ‘desired’ effect in new Bills and Regulations.  Things are made ever so slightly more complicated in that some legislation uses the phrase ‘constable’.  NHDP officers are, of course, constables – but only when operating in their constablewick.  In most cases this concept is not solely rooted in geography.  For example a BTP officer is a constable on the railway and elsewhere throughout Great Britain when dealing with a matter connected to the railway, but for other purpose BTP officers are only constables in constrained circumstances (emergencies etc) or when working on mutual aid etc to Home Department forces.  Similar provisions apply to the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC). Port constables may, with the agreement of the local chief constable have their jurisdiction increased within that Police Area.

It is possible perhaps to anticipate how some current oversights may be corrected in the near future.  The awful scandals that have hammered the Metropolitan Police in recent years provide a reminder that NHDPF officers who are dismissed for gross misconduct are not included on the ‘banned list’ maintained by the College of Policing and are, in theory at least, appointable as constables in Home Department forces.  After the passage of several years the government has moved to close this gap in the Crime and Policing Bill.  One might have thought that the easiest way of sorting this would be to include all holders of the office of constable (and members of the National Crime Agency) in the barred and advisory lists when the appropriate circumstances apply.  For reasons unknown this was not thought appropriate.  Instead new barred and advisory lists are to be created for each of the major NHDPFs meaning that all involved in recruitment and transfers will have to consult each list separately.  Officers in the smaller forces will still not be included.

As an aside it is worth mentioning that there are some examples of NHDPFs being included in legislation that leads to a bit of head scratching.  Quite why BTP is included in the provisions for maritime enforcement  (including boarding and seizing vessels) in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 is a mystery.

Part two of my answer is more straightforward than the first.  NHDPFs are not often left out of legislation because they have been overlooked.  They are excluded because legislators are wary of including organisations that are not seen as equal to Home Department forces.  Policing legislation is overseen by the Home Office.  The Home Office position has remained consistent since the formation of the Metropolitan Police and was much influenced by the Royal Commission of 1839 (3) (which was highly suspicious of ‘private’ attempts to enforce the law).

Put simply the primary responsibility for policing rests with local chief constables and all else is auxiliary and, hopefully, complementary.  Local Chief Constables have full jurisdiction over areas covered by NHDPFs while the Chief Constables of NHDPFs have no responsibility for places outside their limited demesne (4). 

The Home Office, and to a varying extent, local forces, have a near obsessive fear that NHDPFs will trespass on matters which properly fall to local constabularies.  This fear is greater than any felt about the growth of the private security sector or other non police law enforcement agencies.  To unpick why this is the case is beyond the space allowed for this blog but it is a resilient cultural component in policing and in the Home Department.  In the 1970s during the debate about the rise in serious disorder on the London bus network the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office position was that it was better that the problem was left unaddressed than that they support an extension of jurisdiction of BTP to buses.  In the lead up to the creation of the Police Covenant (5) a consultation supported the idea of the inclusion of NHDPFs but the Home Office rejected the idea and prepared a Bill that referred only to the Police Act forces.  Inclusion was brought about only at the last moment and after considerable lobbying. Even now the NHDPFs are lumped together for the purposes of Covenant reporting even though they have little operational commonalty.

The Home Office is happy to see NHDPFs included in legislation and regulations when it suits the needs of ‘their forces’.  In the right wing disorder of 2024 BTP provided welcome mutual aid on the streets of several cities as part of the national effort, this being possible because of the inclusionary sections of the 1996 Act.  But in the Public Order Act 2023 BTP’s powers to protect transport and national infrastructure were constrained within the strict geographical limits of railway owned property (6), rather than throughout Great Britain for purposes connected with the railway.  This constraint mirrors the current wording of s60 Public Order Act 1994. (7).  All this is notable because it is a move away from a lengthy period where BTP enjoyed powers ‘within the vicinity’ of the railway – powers that were removed when BTP was ‘reformed’ in 2003. (8)  The removal of ‘vicinity’ was not brought about because of any problem –  fears that the streets would be invaded by BTP officers enforcing traffic legislation were not made out .  There is no case law that touches the issue and no significant problems were ever reported.

The Home Office and the forces they oversee are cakeists of the first order.

In August 2024 a Home Office Circular was produced. (9)  It advises all forces of the updated Regulations (10) for the appointment of Chief Constables (etc).  Such regulations do not apply to appointments in NHDPFs.  The amendments were necessary to include the demise of the old Senior Command Course and to describe its replacement, but they also provided an opportunity to remove provisions that prevent suitably qualified NHDPF officers from being appointed as Chief Constables of HD forces unless they have first served as Assistant Chief Constables in a HD force.  The Home Department decided not to remove this impediment.  An argument could be made that to police a city or a county requires experience of local policing.  To have credibility the argument would work both ways.  Should an officer who has no experience of policing railways or defence assets or nuclear sites be seen as qualified to act as a Chief Constable in those sectors?  In reality the two tier nature of policing depicts those specialist  posts as being of lesser importance and therefore as ones that can be safely occupied without experience.  If this, tit for tat, argument sounds like weak evidence for discrimination against NHDPFs then a closer look at the Regulations that prevent NHDPF officers becoming Chief Constables in local forces without moving in at a lower rank reveals that in certain circumstances candidates can be appointed as Chief Constables (or Commissioners of the City of London or of the Metropolis) without any UK policing experience at all.  In certain circumstances the Regulations allow Chief Fire Officers to be appointed as Chief Constables.  Indeed while the prospect of a qualified BTP or CNC  Assistant or Deputy Chief Constable moving to be the Chief of a local force is anathema,  it is permitted for, say, a colonel in the California Highway Patrol,  or an Under Sheriff from Wayne County Police Department to be so appointed. (11) That such appointments are unlikely (the idea that US police chiefs could reinvigorate UK policing was one of the early fantasies of the coalition government) is not the point. 

What is the position of NHDPFs on this subject?  It is not clear and clarity is not helped by the fact that the senior ranks of those forces now contain very few ‘home grown’ officers.  Many of the occupants are of a very high calibre and we see fewer instances of these forces being used as a pension supplementing elephants’ graveyard.  (12)  But officers who have never worked in the junior ranks of BTP, CNC or MDP have little experience of the professional problems caused by the  difference in status between HD and NHD forces. 

There have been attempts by some of forces to clear up some of the anomalies.  At best these efforts have resulted in a few tweaks to legislation but no real progress has been made and as each year passes the morass of legislation touching these forces gets deeper and more complex.   In 2013 the Home Secretary set up a group to look at the issue but within weeks it faded away in the face of hostility from within the Home Office and other Government Departments. 

Of course NHDPFs are not always blameless.  They too wish to both possess and consume baked goods.  BTP in particular follows Home Office rules when it suits the force and at other times retreats behind their status as the unloved step child of the Department of Transport.   BTP pays the same rates of pay as other forces (although it is not required to do so) but does not have the same allowances or pension arrangements.  For generations BTP followed the requirements of the Home Office in relation to probationer training but has in recent times abandoned this position. Most other forces no longer recognise BTP initial training.  The force has frequently ignored the rules that bind other forces around the appointment of senior officers, even, in the last few years, appointing a Chief Constable who was not qualified to College of Policing Standards.(13).   On a practical level members of the force have tended to ignore their status as employees of an organisation with constrained powers and (14) have convinced themselves that they are the same as their local constabulary colleagues.  This self delusion has been largely unchallenged but it is an existential timebomb that ticks away in the background.  (15).

All this represents a meandering answer to a simple question.  A more straightforward answer would be to say that until the constitutional and legal status of NHDPFs are aligned with forces established by the Police Act 1996 there will always be differences in the way legislation applies to the 7,000 or so officers of these ‘other’ forces.  It is about time that this was sorted out.

 

Philip Trendall

August 2024  Updated Noember 2025

 

Notes

(1)   Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994, 1994 c.8

(2)   The Interpretation Act 1978, 1978 c.30 Sch One refers to s101 of the Police Act 1996, 1996 c.16 for definitions relating to policing.  S101 makes it clear that a police force is a force maintained by a local policing body.  

(3)   See A Web of English History: https://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/laworder/constab.htm    for the general background.  The authors (who included one of the Commissioners of the Metropolis) were keen to promote a single model of policing.  Their views have remained in the ascendancy ever since.  Note their comment:  “…. and that the practice of investing private hands with public powers for their own use, is fraught with much inconvenience, and some danger of mischief to the public by large associations … [Accessed 22 August 2024]

(4)   This is sometimes described as having ‘shared’ jurisdiction – but it is in reality a one way street.  There are a few minor differences in powers, for example BTP’s right of access to otherwise ‘private’ parts of the railway – but even this is limited.  See s31(2) Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, 2003 c.20

(5)   The covenant, or rather the requirement to report on it, was eventually contained in the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022, 2022 c.32

(6)   Public Order Act 2023, 2023, c.15

(7)   Public Order Act 1994, 1994.  Both the 1994 and 2023 Acts only allow BTP to authorise stop and search etc on railway premises – the alternative would be to allow the power to be used elsewhere in a matter connected to the railway.  Searching someone already on railway premises is rather late if the aim is to protect railway infrastructure.  It also gives rise to the so called ‘St Pancras paradox’.  This arises from an incident involving disorder between rival football fans arriving at St Pancras and King’s Cross Stations.  A BTP authorised s60 allowed fans to be searched as they hunted for their opponents at the adjacent stations – but the authorisation was only valid while the potential foes were in the stations or if they crossed the Pancras Road by the railway owned subway.  Those that chose to use the road crossing could not be searched until they re-entered railway property.  

(8)   Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, 2003 c.20

(9)   Home Office Circular 007/2024: Appointment of senior officers.  Circular amending Annex B made under Police Regulations 2003 to implement changes to the appointment of chief officers.

(10)                  “Annex B (Amendments) – Appointment of Senior Officers” is made by the Secretary of State under regulation 11 of the Police Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/527), following approval by the College of Policing in accordance with regulation 46 of those Regulations. This determination was made on 26 June 2024 and amends the determination “Annex B – Appointment of Senior Officers” (“Annex B”). The amendments come into force on 1 July 2024.

(11)                  See Schedule 8 to the Police and Social Reform Act 2011, 2011 c.13 and The Appointment of Chief Officers of Police (Overseas Police Forces) Regulations 2014, 2014 No 2376

(12)                  The phrase ‘an elephants’ graveyard’ was used in the late 1980s by the Sunday Times in a description of BTP Headquarters. 

(13)                  To be clear this is not a reference to the current (2025) Chief Constable who is fully qualified to serve in any force.

(14)                  One of the key differences between NHDPFs and their Police Act colleagues is that most (if not all) NHDP officers are the holder of the office of constable AND are employees.  There is a clear understanding that the former takes precedence over the latter.  The Police Federation of England and Wales (which does not represent NHDP officers) makes much of the fact that police officers are generally not employees.  However in practical terms it is hard to see what difference this employment status makes. 

(15)                  This characterisation is of course mine.  A serious incident involving BTP that does not go well could easily lead to a debate about whether the force can be trusted with the full range of public duties.  The failures (some of which were unfairly attributed to BTP)  surrounding the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017 sparked such a discussion.  During discussions about the re-introduction of firearms to BTP in 2011 one of the strategic issues was whether the force could survive if a police shooting ‘went wrong’, especially if this occurred outside the core jurisdiction of the force.

 

 

Scott Trendall Ltd delivers consultancy, training and advice on subjects relating to the management of major incidents, civil protection, railway policing, counter terrorism and the role of Non Home Department Police Forces.  The company also provides research services on related topics, family and police history.  For further information please contact philip@scott-trendall.co.uk

 

 

 

CNC - MOX FUEL ESCORT COMPLETE

 

The Takahama Nuclear Power Plant (Picture source unknown)

 CNC officers praised after safely escorting MOX shipment to Japan

Press releases about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) are quite common on the Gov.uk website.  It is rare for government sources to host media information on the forces they have nominal responsibility for.  The CNC is lucky in this regard.

The link below is the latest and describes the successful escort of Mixed Oxide Fuel Assemblies to Japan using two purpose-built vessels.(i)  CNC’s Special Escort Group have considerable experience in escorting civil nuclear fuels etc.  I had the privilege of working with CNC on several occasions in the past when materials were moved from Sellafield by train.

On this blog I often talk about the limited jurisdiction of Non Home Department Police Forces.  CNC have a pretty extensive constablewick:

 

Jurisdiction of Constabulary

(1)A member of the Constabulary shall have the powers and privileges of a constable—

(a)at every place comprised in a relevant nuclear site; and

(b)everywhere within 5 kilometres of such a place.

(2)A member of the Constabulary shall have the powers and privileges of a constable at every trans-shipment site where it appears to him expedient to be in order to safeguard nuclear material while it is at the site.

(3)A member of the Constabulary shall have the powers and privileges of a constable at every other place where it appears to him expedient to be in order to safeguard nuclear material which is in transit.

 (3A)A member of the Constabulary has the powers and privileges of a constable at every place where additional police services are being provided under section 55A.]

(4)A member of the Constabulary shall have the powers and privileges of a constable at every place where it appears to him expedient to be in order to pursue or to detain a person whom he reasonably believes—

(a)to have unlawfully removed or interfered with nuclear material being safeguarded by members of the Constabulary; or

(b)to have attempted to do so.

(5)A member of the Constabulary shall have the powers and privileges of a constable throughout Great Britain for purposes connected with—

(a)a place mentioned in subsections (1) to (4);

(b)anything that he or another member of the Constabulary is proposing to do, or has done, at such a place; or

(c)anything which he reasonably believes to have been done, or to be likely to be done, by another person at or in relation to such a place.

(6)This section has effect in United Kingdom waters adjacent to Great Britain as it has effect in Great Britain, but as if references to the powers and privileges of a constable were references to the powers and privileges of a constable in the nearest part of Great Britain.

(7)In this section—

• “detain”, in relation to a person, includes transferring him to the custody of another or to a place where he may be held in custody;
• “relevant nuclear site” means a licensed nuclear site other than a designated defence site;
• “trans-shipment site” means a place which a member of the Constabulary reasonably believes to be—

(a)

a place where a consignment of nuclear material in transit is trans-shipped or stored; or

(b)

a place to which a consignment of nuclear material may be brought to be trans-shipped or stored while it is in transit;

• “United Kingdom waters” means waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea;
• and nuclear material is “in transit” for the purposes of this section if it is being carried (or is being trans-shipped or stored incidentally to carriage) before its delivery at its final destination.

(8)In subsection (7) “designated defence site” means a site designated by order made by the Secretary of State as a site which appears to him to be used wholly or mainly for defence purposes.

(9)An order under subsection (8) must be laid before Parliament after being made.

(s56 Energy Act 2004)

The provision of additional police services under s55A (referenced in s56 (3A) is a controversial subject on which I may comment further.   Some observers regard this as the first step in creating an infrastructure police/security service – although such talk has been going on for 20 or more years.

In the context of this week’s press release the question of jurisdiction is largely irrelevant as the journey was from mainland Europe to Japan.  The skilled efforts of the escort group are an example of the highest level of maritime security – a concept far removed from the normal role of police officers in the UK.

There is an old debate about whether constabulary powers are needed at all for maintaining the security of civil nuclear materials.  It was Tony Benn who authorised the former United Kingdon Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary to overtly carry weapons (although I have not been able to double check this fact).  The sticking point has always been that the carriage of firearms, other than by HM Forces and the police service has been seen as a step too far.  CNC is at the forefront of armed policing in many respects and its Chief Constable has been a leader in this field for many years.

I wonder how many serving police officers are aware of the hugely complex work undertaken by CNC.  Imagine the logistics of this operation, the planning and training required. Consider the consequences if anything had gone wrong.  In this operation, and in many previous ones, the reputation of the country and the police service has rested with a NHDPF.  All involved are worthy of congratulation.

November 2025

Link:    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cnc-officers-praised-after-safely-escorting-mox-shipment-to-japan?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=952fa400-9f8a-47de-86a1-cae54df71a53&utm_content=daily

(i)                  Mixed Oxide Fuel (or MOX) is a form of nuclear fuel used in reactors.  It uses plutonium from spent reactor fuel which is mixed with uranium.  It is a Class 1 material according to the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and requires the highest level of security. 

 

WHAT COUNTS?

 

                                              MDP officers in Whitehall.  Highly trained and carrying Taser, Firearms                                                 and other PPE.  If they have to use force/restraint the incident does not                                                   appear in the relevant police dataset.  Picture:  MOD

What Counts?

The government sometimnes includes Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPFs), or at least some of them, in some sets of statistics but not in others.  To the public this might, if anyone were interested, seem rather strange.  I think it is.  NHDPFs have nothing to hide.

The latest statistics on the Use of Force by the police service in England and Wales was published today.  It contains a lot of data and its conclusions are nuanced.  It is not the sort of document that lends itself to simple headlines or conclusions.  The data represents an important element in the policy of transparency in policing.  The legitimate use of force by police officers is a feature of the unique nature of the police service.  It is clear that a lot of time and effort goes into trying to get the best data to produce informed conclusions.  Those who work in this field are to be thanked for their contribution to achieving a proper understanding of how the police use their virtual monopoly on the use legitimate of force.  The dataset ranges from the use of restraints (mainly handcuffs) through to the use of firearms.  It is pretty comprehensive.

One slight oddity is that the data does not include figures from most NHDPFs, with only the  (partial) inclusion of data from the British Transport Police (BTP).

On one level it is obvious that NHDPFs (with the exception of BTP) account for a very small proportion of the incidents of the use of force – statistically the figures may well not be significant in determining trends etc.  However, from the perspective of a member of public, I would like to see ALL uses of force by police recorded in one place. 

NHDPFs are among the most heavily armed forces in the UK, even if such weaponry is rarely deployed.  Is it really the case that if an MDP or CNC officer were to use serious force that it wouldn’t appear in the stats?

Nearly all the NHDPFs, including some of the smallest, have officers equipped with personal protective equipment, including incapacitant spray, modern batons and handcuffs.  How difficult would it be to include the figures from these forces?

I think I detect a whiff of an old attitude here.  An attitude that says that what NHDPFs do is somehow less important than anything done by a territorial force – even when it obviously is.  But of course, I could be imagining it. 

The public don't care what legislation or government department governs a constabulary.  They do care about the police use of force.

This helpful set of stats is available at:  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-use-of-force-statistics-april-2024-to-march-2025/police-use-of-force-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2024-to-march-2025

 

November 2025

All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the views of any of the organisations mentioned or of any clients of Scott Trendall Ltd.

A SHORT RANT ABOUT POLICE MEDIA AND A POSITIVE EXAMPLE FROM A NON HOME OFFICE FORCE

 

Much of the media output from the police service comes across as stilted and even arrogant.  The same phrases are used over and over again.  There is a lot of self initiated trumpet blowing and many claims that don’t really stand much scrutiny.  All investigations are described as ‘complex’ and officers are normally described not just as trained but ‘specially’ trained. In the aftermath of misconduct hearings there is always a statement issued by a senior officer that seeks the moral high ground and adopts a holier than thou tone with a pledge not to tolerate such behaviour.  This regardless of the fact that the errant officer was a product of the culture of the force that now seeks to distance themselves from the deeds of their offspring.

 I fear that it won’t be long before media departments are replaced by AI bots – it wouldn’t take a machine long to learn what to say.

The worst aspects of the process of engagement by soundbite can be found in the world of social media.  In the beginning the hope was that this was a vector that would allow direct contact between communities and those who policed them.     Now these channels are full of corporate speak and spin.

I am pleased to end this mini rant by pointing out that this trend does not extend to all police forces.  I have been much impressed by the simple social media output of the Port of Tilbury Police (PoTP).  This small force is the rump of what was once the mighty Port of London Authority Police.  In the small corner of social media that I have access to I see regular short pieces posted by PoTP officers.  They paint a picture of a small force that has a positive self image and understands the niche it occupies in the world of policing.  The posts show officers adopting a modern approach to specialised policing, engaging with other agencies and with their stakeholders whilst maintaining high standards of training and appearance.  Of course this could be the slickest media operation in policing which hides many evils – but I doubt it. 

It is a fairly common view that NHDPFs are strange survivors of another age of policing.  However when one looks closely there are plenty of examples of NHDPFs delivering highly specialised  and focused policing.  The media of activity of the PoTP is perhaps a window into that world.  The biggest forces in the country might be able to learn some lessons in how to portray themselves if they look at the media products produced in Tilbury.

All opinions are mine and are open to challenge.  They do not represent the views of any clients of Scott Trendall Ltd.

Nov 2025

IN POLICE SERVICE?: NHDPFs AND UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Birmingham Parks Police early 20th Century: Source unknown  This force survived until the 1960s.  If it still existed officers would not be able to claim unfair dismissal against the local authority.

IN POLICE SERVICE?

Police officers cannot make claims for unfair dismissal at Employment Tribunals in England and Wales.  It has been argued that this is, in part,  because police officers are not employees, rather that they are individual holders of the office of constable.  This argument is specious.  Holders of the office of constable in Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPFs) are employees of the organisation that maintains the constabulary of which they are members.  It is well established that if there is a conflict between being an employee and being a constable, the office trumps the job.  Even in the British Transport Police officers are both constables and employees.  This is not as a result of some ancient legislation but was a question considered as recently as 2003  in the lead up to the creation of a Police Authority for the force.  BTP and CNC officers are employees of the statutory authorities which maintain their forces.  Prior to 2003 BTP offices were employed by the British Railways Board, even if they served (and were paid for) elsewhere in the transport system (eg London Underground).  The point is that nobody ever saw that being employed caused a problem or a conflict with holding the office of constable.

Officers of all forces can bring claims in relation to discrimination, whistle blowing etc so the employment status distinction is, to some extent, meaningless.  But how far does the prohibition on bringing unfair dismissal claims extend?

Most definitions regarding the police can be found in the Police Act 1996.  It is this Act that makes it clear that NHDPFs are not ‘police forces’ for most legal purposes.  Therefore it is necessary for legislation to positively include those forces when it is intended that powers or responsibilities should be extended to them.   Thus, we behold a complex web of law relating to NHDPFs that is neither in the interests of the police or the public.

In the same year as the Police Act passed into law another important piece of legislation hit the statute book.  The Employment Rights Act 1996 was groundbreaking in many ways and in section 200 it made explicit the rule that unfair dismissal would not apply to those in police service.  The section defines police service as:

In subsection (1) “police service” means—

(a)service as a member of a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment, or

(b)subject to section 126 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (prison staff not to be regarded as in police service), service in any other capacity by virtue of which a person has the powers or privileges of a constable.

 

Members of NHDPFs are members of constabularies (ie bodies of constables) maintained by virtue of an enactment, and therefore in police service for the purposes of employment law  – even if they are not members of a police force within the meaning of the Police Act 1996.

It is unlikely that parliament meant to capture all NHDPF in this provision but the wording is pretty clear – and has withstood the scrutiny of the courts.

This interpretation has been challenged several times.

In a 2024 case before the Employment Tribunal a member of the Port of Dover Police made a claim for unfair dismissal against the Dover Harbour Board.  The claim was struck out as a preliminary issue on the basis that the former officer was in police service.  The Tribunal pointed out:

“The Dover Harbour Police (sic) are maintained under an enactment, the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.  It follows that he was in police service and that section 200 applies to his case………………….it is also clear that (he) had the powers and privileges of a constable” (i)

In coming to its conclusion the Tribunal followed the caselaw on the subject.

From what I can see the first time this came to the attention of the courts was in a BTP case. In Spence v British Railways Board [2001] the claimant was a BTP Detective Sergeant of long standing.  The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) overturned the decision of the Employment Tribunal and made clear that BTP officers were covered by section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. (ii)

The issue came before the Court of Appeal when two ex officers of the Parks Constabulary of the London Borough of Redbridge (iii) attempted to claim for unfair dismissal.  In a complex case (one officer had been dismissed because of his conduct towards the other) the Employment Tribunal had accepted that members of the parks police were in fact ordinary employees of the council carrying out security and low level crime prevention duties, albeit with constabulary powers.  It was pointed out that the officers were employees and that the parks police service did not have the structures (including a federation) that were to be found in Home Department, or large Non Home Department Police Forces.    The EAT ruled that the claim could not proceed because the former officers were in police service within the meaning of s200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.  The parks police were attested under Article 18 of the 1967 Greater London and Open Spaces Order confirmed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 (not a piece of legislation that trips off the tongue).  This was enough to bring them within the definition.  The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal and in a very detailed judgement Jackson LJ described the legislative background and considered the different types of police force that exist and their relative status.  He rejected the argument that constables serving outside the Police Act forces were not ‘real’ constables:

              ….such distinctions exist, they do not mean that regular police officers are ‘real’ constables, whereas officers patrolling the Redbridge parks are not.  A police officer is undoubtedly one species of constables, but he/she is not a paradigm or template with which others claiming to be constables should be compared.  As set out in Part Five above, there are many different forms of constable.  Some are employees.  Some are not.  Nevertheless they all hold the office of constable” (para 54)

The court ruled that the EAT was right to dismiss the claim: parks police are in police service for the purposes of the Act.  However the judges made it clear that they did so with a regret because the law denied these officers any remedy for unfair dismissal.  Longmore, LJ went on to say :

              “Like my Lord I can see no reason why constables who are Council employees (or indeed employees of any other employer) should have no protection from being unfairly dismissed.  I would urge parliament to consider the matter whether with or without the assistance of the Law Commission” (para 76)

Within a short space of time the point came up again at the Court of Appeal, this time before the Master of the Rolls.  In this case the officers were from the Wandsworth Parks Police (iv).  The officers were supported by their union and were appealing against the decision of the EAT which had decided that they were not allowed to make a claim for ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal.   There was also an issue about the applicability of Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.  Again, the court upheld the principle that as they were in police service they could not claim unfair dismissal.  The court added:

“We would urge the government to reconsider the position as a matter of urgency”.  (para 79).

One might have thought that comments made by senior judges might have some influence when this type of law is reviewed.  I have asked several government departments what plans they have to change the law – or at least to consider the suggestion that a change is necessary.  One of the background challenges for NHDPFs is that there is no single source of government level oversight.  To date only the Department for Transport has replied and they have no work under way in connection with this issue.  There are two Bills currently going through Parliament that could have been the vehicle for change , viz the Employments Rights Bills and the Crime and Policing Bill but both are silent on the question of employment rights for constables who do not have the protections available to ordinary employees or the legislation that covers constables in service in the Home Department forces.

The Redbridge and Wandsworth Parks Police were both abolished.  However in Wandsworth they were reformed as the Parks and Event Police and are still sworn in the same way as their predecessors.

The restrictions on claiming unfair dismissal remain and touch on all NHDPFs.

I will update this blog if I find anything else about government plans in this regard.

 

Nov 2025

It is very hard to talk about the role of NHDPFs without looking at the law.  The legal background to NHDPFs is complex and therefore I should remind anyone reading this is that I am not a lawyer.   I am certainly not qualified to offer any advice on legal subjects.  The views expressed are my own.  I do offer a consultancy service on NHDPFs but legal advice must be sought from a qualified (and I would suggest specialised) lawyer.

NOTE: The Royal Parks Police were disbanded by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (s161).  The Royal Parks Operational Command Unit of the Metropolitan Police was disbanded in 2025 as a result of budget cuts.

 

i.                    David Lane V Dover Harbour Board [2025] Employment Tribunal 230399/2023

ii.                   Spence v British Railways Board [2001]  ICR 232

iii.                 McKinnon v The London Borough of Redbridge [2014] EWCA Civ 178

iv.                 Vining V London Borough of Wandsworth [2017] EWCA Civ 1092

 

 

THERE IS POWER IN A UNION

 

The RMT is one of the big three railway unions, together with ASLEF and the TSSA

There is Power in A Union

At least that’s what Billy Bragg wrote in his 1986 song – the title itself probably originated with a 1913 song by Joe Hill of the ‘Wobblies’, not a pop group, but a US trades union properly known as the Industrial Workers of the World (i).  I digress before I begin. 

As a Non Home Department Police Force (NHDPF) the British Transport Police (BTP) have few friends in the corridors of power.  The railway companies and the Department for Transport can not be so described.  One organisation that has come out in support of BTP in recent months is the Rail Maritime and Transport Workers Union (RMT). In press releases during the Summer, and again in the aftermath of the recent dreadful attack on board an LNER train.  The RMT has pointed to the dangers to the public and railway staff of the cuts to the BTP budget.  They have appealed to the government to protect BTP funding and to reverse the reduction in officer numbers. 

The cuts to BTP are another subject and some would point out that the force deals with fewer crimes than it did 40 years ago and now has far more staff.  However, such comparisons are dangerous as the context of policing has changed, as has the recording of crime.  What is obvious is that BTP appears to have largely withdrawn from foot patrols and that visibility to the travelling public is at an all time low. 

The RMT is a big, influential left leaning union with around 80,000 members.  Whether their intervention will make any difference to the cuts is unlikely, but a voice of support is always welcome.

The relationship between BTP and the railway unions has not always been good.  The forerunner of the RMT – the National Union of Railwaymen (NUR) – frequently came into conflict with BTP in the 1970s and 1980s, believing that their members were sometimes persecuted by the force to achieve ‘results’.  There were also accusations of racial discrimination, at least one case of which reached the higher courts.  In the days when vast amounts of goods were moved by rail the issue of ‘theft servant’ was always a difficult one.  The same was true of forces policing the non railway docks, especially for the Port of London Authority Police, the parent of the current Port of Tilbury Police.

Railway workers make up a significant minority of the ‘population’ policed by BTP.  They are a distinct group from railway management and from the travelling public.  Their concerns need to be listened to.    The force was slow to engage directly with workers but hopefully things have changed.  I recall the process started with several very useful (but not always easy) meetings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2005.  I hope that the current dialogue continues.    

The question of the interface between police officers and employees is a particular issue in NHDPFs, given that the areas policed have a narrow geographical (and often economic) focus.  In some cases NHDPF officers are themselves directly employed by the same organisation as ‘ordinary’ workers – in a few cases than can also be members of the same union.

I would be interested to hear how the relationship between workers, their unions and the police is managed in forces other BTP– in some senses this goes to the heart of the specialist nature of NHD policing.

The RMT statement can be found at:   https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-calls-for-btp-cuts-reversal-and-safer-railways-following/

Nov 2025

(i)                   Joe Hill was convicted of murder (some would say on weak evidence) and executed by firing squad in Utah, USA in 1915.  He is credited with first using the phrase ‘pie in the sky’ in a lyric of 1911.  The phrase was a reference to his belief that organised religion served to repress workers by the promises of heaven etc  The phrase has an a more forceful echo in the song, The World Turned Upside Down, also covered by Billy Bragg:  “The Clergy Dazzle us with Heaven or Damn us into Hell” (Leon Rosselson, 1975).  One of the benefits of the blog format is the ability to follow any tangent however far from the core subject!