Police on Ferries - Whatever Next?

 


This image accompanied the Guardian's reporting of this story and its source is here acknowledged



Police on ferries?  Whatever next?  The announcement this week that the government wishes to use the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) to conduct armed patrols on cross channel ferries is an interesting one.  On a simple level it is an attempt to close a gap in our counter terrorism defences.  The absence of any police presence on ferries is an obvious issue when other means of entering and leaving the UK have more comprehensive security and policing regimes in place.

The government press release refers only to cross channel ferries and the route to the Netherlands from Newcastle.  This is slightly odd as it means that gaps will continue on other routes.

Why will all the patrols be armed?  Is this a result of a particular risk assessment  (presumably around marauding attacks) or is it the product of the fact that the CNC will be the force deployed and all CNC officers are armed?  Transport has nothing to do with civil nuclear material.  The CNC do not currently have jurisdiction to operate in this arena except at the request of local forces (or British Transport Police for the railways).  The explanation is quite simple.  CNC have spare capacity.  The closure of nuclear power stations and the delay until their replacements come on stream mean the force is available.  There are no secrets around this.  The force and the government have been quite open about the matter, even running a public consultation on expanding the role of the CNC.  The consultation did not provoke a lot of public interest but it was available for all to see.  CNC have developed into a modern and effective force.  But they are a force that does not routinely engage with the public.  They exist as a protective body of well trained constables with a precise mission.  They are free from any investigative functions and they are complainant with the requirements of the College of Policing.  But should we be content with this most blatant example of mission creep?  CNC has assisted other forces in the past but those deployments occurred during period of national emergency, now they are to be a regular feature of peacetime travel.

Many ferries used to be subject of regular policing by the British Transport Police (BTP).  This ended when Sealink, formerly part of British Rail,  was privatised.  It was a useful contingency in the days when football fans travelled to Europe by ferry.  This work led to BTP senior officers giving evidence into causes of the Heysel Stadium Disaster  (1985) and to that force leading the last large scale prosecution for the common law offence of ‘Affray on the High Seas’ (1987).  BTP has experience of patrolling places crowded with passengers and has the option of using both armed and unarmed officers.  In many ways it would be logical for BTP to return to ‘ferry policing’, but this too would require amendments to legislation.  The government home of BTP is the Department for Transport (Dft – although always referred to by a least one magazine as ‘Daft’)  whilst it is the department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy  (BEIS) that has oversight of CNC.

Transport between France and the UK is policed in several different ways.  The fixed link and the shuttle is the responsibility of Kent Police.  The Eurostar and Freight rail services are looked after by BTP.  The Port of Dover has its own force.  We can now add CNC into this mix which also includes Border Force etc.

The CNC is made up of capable officers.  There is no reason why they cannot make a success of this endeavour.  But is it  another symptom of an increasingly fragmented approach to policing, especially as it touches Non Home Department forces?   The legislation is a mess.  Suggestions around creating an ‘infrastructure’ police force, along the lines of the Indian Central Industrial Security Force, foundered a couple of years ago – for good reasons.  Sellafield has little in common with, say, Euston.  Suggested machinery of government changes that would have placed ALL policing under the responsibility of the Home Office also failed to progress in 2014/15.  Perhaps it is time to have a good look at those police forces that sit outside the Home Office and to update the legislation that enables or restricts them. Together they amount to several thousand officers and make a significant contribution to UK policing. 

We should welcome better security for international ferries but it is right to question the logic that puts this in the hands of a police force that was created, and is maintained, for other purposes, their professionalism notwithstanding.

 

Feb 2022

 

This blog originally appeared on:  https://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/6192421530041080418?hl=en-GB 

This contents of this blog reflect the views of the author and are not necessarily the view of Scott Trendall Ltd of any clients thereof. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pandemic: Prosecution Mistakes

Image
A piece in the Guardian has highlighted the fact that 56 people have been incorrectly prosecuted for offences under the emergency regulations and that a further 44 charges (that is ALL of them) under the Coronavirus Act 2020 were wrongly brought.   The article concludes that the errors were a result of the rushed nature of the legislation. Rushed and ill considered legislation rarely works as anybody who has ever tried to use the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will know.   How can legislation and the regulations that sit under it be drafted, enacted and enforced within a few days without there being any errors?   The introduction of new legislation takes time.   Police officers and prosecutors need training and briefing.   Procedures and bureaucracy needs to be developed (everything from policy to counting codes).   But of course this was an emergency – things had to move quickly.   This is true, but isn’t this what contingency planning is for...
Read more

A Long Reply to a Short Post on Linkedin: JESIP

  This isn’t an article, it isn’t really a blog (although I will post it as such elsewhere).   It is really a comment on a recent helpful post on Linkedin by Rob Davis on the subject of the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).   Alas my comment is too long winded for the normal format. Before saying anything else I would mention that some posters have suggested that Mr Davis has pre-empted his own research findings.   This doesn’t worry me – some things are obvious even early on in research and any final conclusions that the author reaches will be subject to the rigours of the academic system that surrounds such high awards.   The fact that JESIP doesn’t always work is a well documented fact. JESIP is a simple, indeed a worthy, statement of good intent.   The principles are, in one sense, not capable of being doubted.   Perhaps this is the reason that criticism is sometimes treated as heresy.   As a member of the publi...
Read more

Being a personal reflection on the importance of anniversaries

Image
  As anybody who reads my blogs knows, I think that that anniversaries are important.  One piece of feedback I received was to stop ‘banging on about them’.  I value feedback but I reject this suggestion because I have seen that recognising anniversaries can be a strong force for good.  This is true emotionally, but also practically.  They serve as landmarks in the temporal landscape.  They are an aide memoire of the lessons from major events and a benchmark to mark our progress or decline.  They also allow us to respectfully reflect on lives lost and loss endured.  Of course for those with personal connections with disasters anniversaries have a deeper and rawer significance. From a professional point of view we do well to remember the contributions of our forebears.  Their efforts are no less important than our own. Today my appointments took me through Moorgate station in the City of London and as always my thoughts turned to the horrors o...
Read more