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:
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’.
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
The names of all the officers mentioned are available in the file which is open to the public.
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.
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
The Defence (General Regulations) 1939
The Public Utility Undertakings Police (Employment and Offences) Order 1941 (No 1590)
Originally published on the blog: Policing Public Transport: A Neglected History