Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Official Report 823KB pdf

---

British Transport Police in Scotland (Proposed Integration into Police Scotland)

Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on the proposed integration of the British Transport Police in Scotland into Police Scotland. I welcome Humza Yousaf, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and his official, Donna Bell, deputy director of the Scottish Government’s police division.

I refer members to paper 2, which is a private paper.

Do you want to make a short opening statement, cabinet secretary?

Yes. Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak today. I again put on record my sincere thanks to the officers and staff of both police services for their on-going commitment.

Integration is a challenging and complex piece of work, and considerable work has been done to assess the risks, the opportunities and the challenges that full integration presents. The safety and security of the travelling public are paramount, and we cannot and will not allow that to be compromised in any way.

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved railway policing powers to Scotland. Our aim has always been to use the devolved powers to ensure that railway policing in Scotland is, through the chief constable of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, accountable to the people of Scotland.

The Government was clear that full integration was our aim for the devolution of railway policing, as it would deliver a single command structure for policing in Scotland, with the benefits that would be provided by having seamless policing operations across the railways and the wider community.

The purpose of the replanning exercise that was announced in February by my predecessor was to flush out issues and identify when a fully integrated high-quality service could be delivered. That has been a very important piece of work. Some of the evidence that has emerged has certainly deepened my understanding of the issues, and I must now give serious and appropriate consideration to them.

I have always listened to our stakeholders and that is why, on the recent advice from Police Scotland, I have decided to explore all options available for interim arrangements. There is a pressing need to identify such arrangements that can more quickly give effect to the Smith commission’s cross-party recommendation to devolve railway policing to the Scottish Parliament.

Crucial to that must be the relationship between railway policing and the railway industry. As both the funder and the recipient of railway policing services, the railway industry and its interests are, of course, central, and railway operators should be fully involved in setting railway policing priorities and objectives for Scotland.

I am clear that, before full integration may be realised, there are benefits to considering an interim solution that still meets the recommendations and, indeed, the spirit of the Smith commission. The due diligence report commissioned by Police Scotland identifies that the provisional cost of railway policing in Scotland in the financial year 2018 is £21.9 million, including approximately £9.5 million of indirect costs to the BTP-centralised functions to which Scotland directly contributes.

There is an opportunity to leverage that position for a fairer deal for Scotland in policing our railways and to consider a uniquely Scottish funding model. That could have a number of benefits, including providing greater certainty to the rail industry about on-going costs; a more transparent service agreement with greater input for Scottish stakeholders; and the potential for an enhanced productivity model.

Over the past few years, other options, including detailed proposals from the BTP and the British Transport Police Authority, have been considered. Given the need to look at interim arrangements, it is only right that we revisit those options—and, indeed, any others—give them due consideration, undertake rigorous scrutiny and test them with stakeholders and professionals. It is imperative that Police Scotland, the SPA, the BTP and the BTPA are part of that process, and I am delighted that all partners have committed to undertaking this work. I am keen to bring all stakeholders together to fully consider the options for interim arrangements, and my officials are organising that as a matter of urgency.

I fully recognise that this next phase of work still provides a degree of uncertainty for staff and officers. However, given the recent advice from Police Scotland and the new need to identify interim solutions for the devolution of railway policing, it is crucial that time and consideration are given to the options. It must be noted that, as things stand, there is no change to officers and staff, who will remain the responsibility of the BTPA.

I will, of course, keep the committee informed as the work progresses.

Thank you. We move to questions.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The Scottish Parliament passed the Railway Policing (Scotland) Act 2017 last June. What is the status of that legislation? If you are considering new options, will new legislation be needed to implement them?

Clearly, we are not commencing the provisions in the 2017 act. The language that I have used in my answers to parliamentary questions and in my statement here this morning is that we will continue to keep the commencement date under review. As we begin to explore interim solutions, things will clearly depend on what those arrangements are. If they involve the need for legislation, we will have to come back to the Parliament, get the agreement of other political parties and—I hope—move things forward. That said, it might well be that we reach a solution—an interim arrangement—that does not require legislation.

In the meantime, it is important that whatever interim solution we and partners end up agreeing on is given time so that we can see whether it fulfils the ambitions that we all have in relation to railway policing vis-à-vis the Smith commission. As I said, we will keep the act under review.

I did not hear exactly what you said in your opening statement about the amount of money that the British Transport Police gets from Scotland.

The amount that the railway industry pays for services for railway policing is £21.9 million, but it should be noted that £9.5 million of that directly contributes to centralised services. There is a view, which was expressed during the committee’s various evidence sessions on the integration of the BTP, that it may be possible to revisit the funding and get a fairer deal.

Thank you.

Cabinet secretary, you have described the issue as “challenging and complex”, and you have highlighted the importance of public safety. Those were at the forefront of considerations when the committee put considerable time into looking at the Railway Policing (Scotland) Bill. Do you feel let down by Police Scotland?

No. Police Scotland gave me and the committee the best advice that it could give at the time. We then began the deep dive into the work and the detail. I should say at the outset that Police Scotland always said that it would not commence that work until the will of Parliament was determined, and it was right not to presume to know the will of Parliament. We have done that work and engaged with the various specialists and experts, and the issues have now come to the fore.

Police Scotland did the right thing by informing me and my officials of the fact that it was unable to give a date for integration. It was the right and prudent thing to do for me, as a Government minister, to update the Parliament and the committee to that effect and, as I said, to look at the other options that are available. I do not feel let down by Police Scotland.

You have clearly failed to deliver on the legislation. Are you confident that the Scottish Government has provided the committee with all the information that has led us to this point?

Yes—without a shadow of a doubt. We were acting, of course, on the best advice that we were being given. That advice has changed, but it has changed based on the detailed work that Police Scotland has done—the detailed examination of a merger that would be done with almost any merger or integration. It is absolutely right that Police Scotland has come to us with that.

Am I disappointed that we are at this stage and are unable to push ahead with full integration? I see the benefits of full integration with seamless policing and a single command structure, so the answer is yes. I have said that in my answers to parliamentary questions. However, I have an absolute duty, first and foremost, to ensure that the public are kept safe and the travelling public are protected, and, secondly, to try to give effect to the Smith commission’s recommendation as quickly as is practicably possible.

Yes, but that is the singular thing that you have failed to do. We all agreed that public safety is of paramount importance, along with the terms and conditions of the affected officers and staff. Again, you have failed to deliver the necessary assurances there, even though we are a considerable way into the process.

It has been clearly identified that there is a democratic deficit. In effect, we have a police service operating in Scotland that is not accountable to this Parliament and this committee. In recent times, we have seen significant police operations on disorder at stations, such as the incident involving significant disorder on the Ayrshire coast, and it was primarily Police Scotland that was involved in those operations. We can scrutinise Police Scotland, but we cannot scrutinise that force.

I agree that the safety of the travelling public is of paramount importance, but the most pressing issue for me is the democratic deficit in relation to accountability to this Parliament. I have no doubt that, when stakeholders gather round the table and explore all the other options, addressing the accountability deficit, which you articulate well, will be at the forefront of everybody’s minds.

Thank you.

11:45  

One of the papers from the recent SPA board meeting states:

“In essence, the current BTP and Police Scotland systems are incompatible, and Police Scotland’s wider ICT transformation which could increase compatibility is only at the planning stages with delivery of the improved system being several years away.”

If that is one of the major points that is preventing the implementation of full integration, why was it a surprise that Police Scotland’s information and communication technology transformation was at a stage that would prevent the integration of BTP systems?

I think that anybody who has dealt with the integration of ICT systems—I do not presume to know whether the member has or not—knows that it is a complex matter. If we could have determined beforehand that BTP’s systems and Police Scotland’s systems were not compatible or that we would not be able to make them compatible in time for full integration, we would have arrived at that conclusion and Police Scotland’s advice to me—and to this committee, in fact—would have been different.

However, it is right that Police Scotland did not presume to know the will of Parliament on this issue and did not start on detailed work before the decision was made. I can understand members’ frustrations; please accept that I am also frustrated about where we are with this. Nonetheless, if that is the advice from Police Scotland, the prudent thing for me to do is to accept it and see what other interim arrangements can be made.

If it would be helpful to the member, we could give the committee a little bit more detail about some of those ICT integration issues. The issues are in some respects fairly complex, as members can imagine—ICT issues tend to be. Nonetheless, if the committee would find that insight interesting, we could provide some of that information.

It strikes me that that sort of detail is pretty critical in developing a business case for any form of integration. In retrospect, do you feel that the business case should have been developed prior to the introduction of the legislation, rather than afterwards?

We published the case to the United Kingdom Government on the integration of the BTP and Police Scotland. However, what if the police and the Government had presumed to know the will of Parliament and had spent the time and the resource only for Parliament not to pass the Railway Policing (Scotland) Act 2017? The committee would have been the first to bring in Police Scotland and the Government to hold them to account for spending that resource and that time and presuming to know the will of Parliament.

I do not come to the committee feeling bullish in any sense; I come with a degree of humility. There is clearly a space between not presuming to know the will of Parliament and doing a deep dive and detailed analysis. That would have served us better than where we happen to be.

We would rather not be in this position. I do not speak for Police Scotland but I imagine that none of the stakeholders wants to be in this position. However, we are faced with the changing advice that we have been given by Police Scotland. I accept the reasons that Police Scotland has given me relating to the challenges, and therefore it is incumbent on me to find interim arrangements that can give assurance, especially on the issues around accountability.

Given that statement in the SPA board meeting paper, do you agree with the conclusion that extends from it that full integration will not be possible for several years and that it can happen only once Police Scotland’s ICT transformation has been fully implemented?

Having spoken to Police Scotland and the SPA—and I look forward to talking to other partners very soon about this—I think that many people look at policing 2026 as being the natural dovetail point for full integration, which is being kept under review, so I would not disagree with that assessment.

My focus is not on full integration at the moment. Police Scotland has advised me that it cannot give a definitive date for full integration. Therefore, my attention and the Government’s attention is on finding those interim solutions—I have suggested to stakeholders that all our attention should be on finding them—to deal with the accountability question that John Finnie rightly raised and to ensure that we continue to maintain safety for the travelling public on our railways.

We should probably roll back a bit. As you know, cabinet secretary, this was the committee that looked at the legislation and, unusually, we divided on it. We were not all 100 per cent happy that the legislation had been got right. Will you give us more information about what changed in February 2018? You mentioned some reasons that were given by Police Scotland. IT has been highlighted—what were the other reasons?

I hope that I have never given the impression that I thought that the course of action that we were taking was universally popular. I understand that—I was at the committee sessions and the various debates that took place.

As I previously outlined to the committee, the MTT—mobilisation, transition and transformation—project was established in October 2017. The purpose of the project was to support the delivery of the operational aspects of the integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland, and it was led jointly by Police Scotland and the BTPA. The joint work that was carried out by those bodies reviewed progress on operational matters in February 2018 and, at that point, concluded that a number of significant issues remained to be resolved. That advice was fed into the joint programme board, which was advised that further time was needed to deliver integration effectively for the safety of railway passengers. The advice that, from an operational perspective, more time was needed came from the joint piece of work that was done by Police Scotland and the BTPA through the MTT project, which advised the joint programme board.

I will delve a little bit further. Why were those developments not identified previously in the specialist integration due diligence analysis that was carried out by EY at a cost of £298,000, and why were they not acted on once they were identified?

There are a couple of things to say. The obvious point is that it was Police Scotland that commissioned the due diligence analysis from EY, which is the £298,000 contract that you referred to, so I refer the committee to Police Scotland.

The second point refers to my previous answer. My understanding is that the due diligence work focused primarily on the costs of railway policing such as the assets, the liabilities, the fleet and the property, which would be relevant to full integration. The work did not focus on the operational issues. I emphasise the point that the operational aspects that the MTT project considered, which I talked about in my previous answer, would not have come out in the piece of work on due diligence, which focused on the assets and liabilities.

We are now three years down the line. Why has it taken so long?

Again, I go back to one of my previous answers. I completely agree with what Police Scotland’s representative—I think that it was Assistant Chief Constable Higgins—said to the committee, which was that Police Scotland would not presume to know the will of Parliament. Clearly, it would have been presumptuous to do all that work—the work of the joint programme board and the detailed analysis for which specialists are needed and for which specialists have been drafted in—and spend that resource and time until the act was passed by Parliament. As I said in my answer to Daniel Johnson, there are clearly lessons to be learned and a bit of reflection is needed about doing the detailed analysis that needed to be done without presuming to know the will of Parliament. I am reflecting on that and I hope that all our partners are reflecting on it, too.

I will stick with the issue of the consultants. In the work that EY produced at a cost of £298,000, did it miss something that came as a surprise to everyone in or around February, or was there a failure to sufficiently instruct EY on the scope of the work?

I go back to my previous answer on not presuming to know the will of Parliament. If the question is whether that work could have been done before, I think that we all, and certainly Opposition members, would have questioned why Police Scotland was spending a fairly significant resource on a piece of work that had not been signed off or agreed by a majority in Parliament. There would have been a question about spending that money.

There are two contracts for work from EY, and they can sometimes be conflated. My answer to the convener was that some of the work was on the assets and liabilities—with any merger, the organisations’ assets and liabilities will be looked at. That work was done and I am reflecting on whether there was a reflective space in which some of the detailed examination could have been done in advance.

To be absolutely clear, EY is undertaking two pieces of work with different scopes. One costs £298,000 and relates to assets and liabilities, and the other costs about £400,000; what does that piece of work relate to?

There is another consultant that comes through Harvey Nash recruitment. What work is that second consultant with a third work scope undertaking?

Those are questions for Police Scotland, but I will give you my best understanding. In my answer to the convener, I referred to one EY contract, which is the one that relates to due diligence on all the things that would be considered with any merger—the assets and liabilities, the fleet and the property. The second contract looks at programme support, targeted operating models and so on.

The work that will be done by the Harvey Nash consultant very much relates to specialist programme support. We have given the cost of that work in answer to a parliamentary question. So far, the consultant has done 260 days of work, and approximately £60,000 has been spent.

I will ask Donna Bell to provide a little more detail on the second EY contract.

I am happy to do so. As Mr Yousaf said, EY was involved throughout the replanning. The programme is very complex and EY brought its specific programme management specialist skills to the Police Scotland part of the programme.

The consultant is, in effect, the Scottish Government’s interim professional adviser, and that person has co-ordinated the programme, as well as working with partners to develop the target operating model. A range of workstreams has fallen out of that. The consultant has a co-ordination role in seeking to secure the detailed parts of the target operating model and the programme’s timeline.

Will the scope and outputs of the consultants be made publicly available and, if so, when? On the remuneration of the consultants, is the contract with EY a fixed-fee contract in which it will take £298,000 for that piece of work, or is it a rolling contract in which EY will bill on a time-and-line basis, whereby the longer the work carries on, the more money will be paid from the public purse?

On the second question, I will ask Donna Bell whether she has slightly more detail. We are talking about three contracts—two from Police Scotland and one from the Scottish Government—so some of the detail on the procurement system that is used might need to come from Police Scotland.

My understanding is that the Government’s contract with the consultant from Harvey Nash operates on a rolling basis, but I will ask Donna Bell to confirm that in a second.

In reply to Liam Kerr’s question about what can be made publicly available, I will say two things. First, whatever option we end up going with, the work that is being carried out in the interim will stand us in good stead and come in useful. Secondly, if the member does not mind, I will take away his request for what can be made publicly available and look at it with an open mind. The member will understand that there might well be sensitivities around the consultant’s personal information, commercial sensitivities and other such things. However, where possible, we should make information on that work publicly available as widely and transparently as possible, and I have no issues with doing so.

We have talked a lot about the costs of the external consultants. Do you have any estimate on the total costs that have been spent to date on staff time, SPA time, Police Scotland time and other consultancies? Is there a global figure?

12:00  

That would be difficult to give, because you are asking me to somehow conjure up specifics around other stakeholders’ staff time. I would not be able to give you that information. You would have to ask those individual organisations about their staff time.

Even from a Government point of view, when we give estimated figures for staff time—we have given them to the Justice Committee in a letter to the convener, which I think is publicly available—they are crude estimates. We base them on the officials who are involved, their salary levels and an approximation of how much time they are devoting to the project. Of course, they devote time to many other projects in the Government, too.

We can certainly give you crude estimates of staff figures from the Scottish Government. We have been able to get them from the Department for Transport as well, which, again, we have passed on to the convener, and we are able to give you consultancy costs. You can add all of that together, but would that give you a truly global figure? You would have to speak to other partners and stakeholders to gather from them figures on the staff costs that are involved in the project.

The independent watchdog’s report on the proposed integration of the BTP in Scotland states that the Scottish Government failed to set out a

“single, detailed and authoritative business case”.

Are you in a position to do that now?

As I said, we published the case for the UK Government initially, I think, in 2013. I have spoken at length in committee and in parliamentary debates about why we think that full integration has benefits. I have talked about and touched on some of that. Clearly, as the JPB partners and others are giving their detailed analysis and consideration, issues are being flushed out, and that is only right—that is the purpose of the joint programme board.

We have a case, and we have given much detail over the years on why we think that full integration is beneficial, but I say to the convener that that is not where my focus currently is. Currently, the advice from Police Scotland is that it cannot give me and cannot determine a date for full integration. My focus is very much on the interim arrangements.

Presumably, then, the business case is constantly under review and it will be looked at again. We have already heard about the cost of consultants and other aspects.

It is a very reasonable question to ask. My direction to my Government officials, and this has been shared with other partners, is that the work on full integration should be paused while we focus our attention on the interim arrangements. As I said in my answer to Daniel Johnson, full integration is a long-term goal that will be kept under review. The immediate focus must be on what the interim arrangements will be.

Given that the report is by the independent watchdog, can I ask you about the other two major points that he raised? There was a total lack of thought regarding the fact that the proposals would lead to a dual command structure for railway policing across Great Britain.

Again, I would say that the benefits very much outweigh that point. The single command structure in Scotland, which is what we would have had with full integration, would have been of great benefit, and I still believe it would be of great benefit. My belief is very much that the benefits that we would have seen in Scotland would have outweighed any of the negatives.

What are the benefits, as you see them, given that presumably—it would be good if you confirmed this—the safety that has been maintained by the BTP is paramount in whatever arrangement we have?

The benefits are well rehearsed from the Government’s point of view. We have talked about seamless policing, the single command structure and the fact that, if the forces were integrated, Police Scotland could—if I remember the phrase correctly—routinely deploy Police Scotland officers, thereby using that pool of resource right across our rail network to enhance safety for the travelling public. Indeed, when ACC Higgins and other Police Scotland officers were here giving evidence, they often talked about the enhanced training that every Police Scotland officer would have in relation to Scotland’s railways.

There are—and continue to be—many benefits to full integration but, once again, I press the point and emphasise that that is a long-term goal that is being kept under review. My immediate focus is very much on finding interim solutions and arrangements, and we will consult on and discuss that issue with stakeholders. I will be open to listening to good ideas, wherever they come from.

I just want to press you on HMICS’s very last point, which was that

“the specialist and distinct nature of BTP’s work has been underestimated”.

I completely disagree. I have always said to the BTP directly and, indeed, to this committee that, certainly in my time as Minister for Transport and the Islands, I have seen how expert BTP officers are. When there was a suicide on the line—which, unfortunately, happened too often—they were extremely sensitive and professional and cleared the situation in the best possible way and with minimal disruption of service. They had—and have—a very high reputation in the rail industry. I have seen that at first hand and in conversations that I had as transport minister. From a Government point of view, I have never underestimated their expertise, and I argue that that was never under threat or at risk with full integration.

However, as I keep saying, that is not our immediate focus. The immediate focus is very much on finding the interim arrangements.

Evidence that we saw suggested that some of that experience was leaving BTP, because of all the other things that had not been resolved. I find it very encouraging that you recognise this specialism and have given examples of how essential it is, but surely any haemorrhaging in that respect because of what has happened indicates a problem here.

Again, I think that the evidence that you are quoting was based on staff surveys. However, we want those officers to remain, because we see them as being vital to the efficient and safe running of the railway industry. I do not take away from any of that, and there has never been any underestimation of the very vital service that the BTP provides. The reason for going ahead with full integration was that we believed that it would be an enhancement of, not a detriment to, that service.

You have stated a few times that full integration remains the long-term goal, despite the various criticisms from across the spectrum. How do you respond to the suggestion that you are starting with full integration and then working backwards to find out what the benefits are and how to get them? I would have thought that, instead—and this brings us back to John Finnie’s question—you should be taking what seems to me to be the sensible approach of saying, “What is the best product that will deliver public safety, above all, as well as deliver for the public purse? What model will deliver that?”

I do not see the two approaches as mutually exclusive. I say that because we have passed the 2017 act, which sets out the legislative framework that is needed for full integration. As for the interim solutions that we come up with, we will continue to keep the committee apprised of the situation, but we could reach a position where the interim arrangements universally satisfy us—in other words, the political parties around this table and the stakeholders involved. If, after a few years of those arrangements being in place, we were universally satisfied with regard to the accountability deficit and were satisfied that we had the best model in place not just to maintain but to enhance the travelling public’s safety, we would have to look again at whether to commence the legislation.

That is one position. On the other hand, some interim arrangements could be put in place, but the Parliament and stakeholders might then recognise that full integration, on a timescale determined by the partners—Police Scotland, the BTPA and so on—could have enhanced benefits, and that it would be prudent to keep the legislative framework and not repeal the 2017 act or change that framework.

The prudent way to approach it will be to examine and explore the options for interim arrangements that would give best effect to the letter and the spirit of the Smith commission on railway policing, give those some time during which the matter can be open for discussion—I will be keen to hear from other political parties—and keep it under review. That is why I keep using the language that full integration is a long-term goal. I am keeping commencement of the act under review. I do not have a closed mind on it but, from a Scottish Government point of view, we still see benefits in full integration. I stress again that my immediate focus is on finding interim arrangements that I hope will give effect to Smith.

I start with an apology for being late, cabinet secretary; I was attending another committee to move amendments to a bill. You restated the rationale behind the decisions that you took on the integration of the BTP into Police Scotland, but you will recall that many of us questioned why other options are being explored now, rather than at the outset. Given that there is a pause in the commencement of legislation that has already been passed, that legislation that was passed in the previous session of Parliament has been repealed in this session and that there are other examples in which we appear to be legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, are there lessons that you will take from this experience and apply as you take forward other parts of the legislative programme for which you have responsibility?

Certainly. It would be foolish of me to say that there are no lessons to be learned. There clearly are, not just for the Government but for all the partners that have been involved. We will all reflect on that. I do not know whether Liam McArthur was here at the time, but I said earlier that I do not come to this committee in a bullish manner. I understand that a degree of humility is needed in these matters and I come very much in that reflective spirit.

We took forward full integration on the best advice that we had at the time. I do not doubt Police Scotland’s advice at the time—it was the best advice that it could provide—but the advice changed and we are in the position that we are in. I am undoubtedly reflective, but I also have a focus on giving effect to the spirit and letter of the Smith commission as best I can and, I hope, as quickly as possible.

I appreciate that and apologise again for not being present for your earlier comments. I take what you say in the spirit in which it is conveyed. My concern with this particular example is that the evidence that we took suggested that the advice that you received from Police Scotland had been given in response to a very clear steer from ministers—you in particular—about where you wanted to go. That is very different from saying: here is an open book; this is our direction of travel and where we want to go; what is your advice on the best way of achieving that? Instead of being open minded about how to achieve a result and saying that, although your preference was full integration, you were genuinely open to arguments about other ways of achieving the broad principles laid out by the Smith commission, which were accepted by all of us, it seems, from watching the process, as if all the evidence and advice that you took was with a view to substantiating and justifying full integration.

I do not think that anybody was particularly surprised by our position on full integration—it has been our position for many years. What we did was base the date for full integration, which would have been April next year, on advice that we were given.

As I say, I think that the advice was the best advice it was possible to give at the time. Having been involved in the legislation from my perspective as the Minister for Transport and the Islands, I never once had any impression from the police that they were being leaned on at all in relation to the date of full integration—as Liam McArthur is perhaps insinuating, if nothing else.

12:15  

The date came from advice that we received from Police Scotland through close collaboration and close working but, as I say, that advice changed based on further work that Police Scotland did, engaging with experts and of course being part of the joint programme board, where part of the job was to flush out some of these issues. I would therefore reject any suggestion—even if it is just an insinuation—that there was any leaning on any stakeholders to fit a timetable for Government.

On the general principle of integration, do you agree that there is an element of hypocrisy here? Last year’s Conservative manifesto proposed to

“create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure such as nuclear sites, railways and the strategic road network”?

There seems to be a will from the Conservatives south of the border to merge forces in that respect but there is opposition up here to the general principle.

I was doing my best to be as collegiate and collaborative as possible. However, it is a matter of note in debate and even at committee that we are not the only political party to have thought that the merging of police forces is a good idea. As I say, it is a matter of note that this was, I think, in the Conservative 2016 manifesto—

It was in the 2017 manifesto.

—and in the 2017 general election manifesto as well. I do not know where the UK Government is on its plans on that. However, I concur that we are clearly not the only ones to believe that merging forces is a good idea.

I want to pick up on the options in a minute. First, I have an observation on the ICT issue. From experience, I know how difficult and complex ICT projects can be, so I think that it would be helpful for the committee to take you up on your offer of sharing some of the detail of those issues, how they will be resolved, the proposed timeframe, and—quite importantly, from experience of such project management—how the project will be managed, because it has to be managed well in order to resolve those issues.

If I understood you correctly, you are saying that the Government will look at the options in order to put interim arrangements in place. The success or otherwise of the interim arrangements will colour the view of whether those arrangements stand the test of time and potentially become the arrangements going forward. However, you are saying that you will remain open minded on that, depending on how effective those arrangements are.

Presumably some of those options will be the ones identified back in January 2015, but you hinted in your opening statement that some of them may be new options. I want to understand how those new options in particular will be developed and who will be involved in developing them.

You have said that the options have to deliver on the Smith commission principles—we all understand that—but is there a preferred option at this stage or are you completely open minded on that? Lastly, how will you ensure that Parliament and this committee are kept informed and involved, given that the parties represented here may have options to bring to the table in that regard?

On the latter point, when we consulted on the matter, I do not think that any other political party came forward with detailed proposals on alternative arrangements. If other parties want to come forward with models that they back firmly, my door is very much open.

I thank Shona Robison for prefacing her comments with her remarks on ICT, because anyone who has been involved in ICT integration knows that it can be challenging and complex. I will certainly endeavour to get a note to the committee, via the convener, on some of the ICT challenges that exist. Police Scotland is building up its case on updating the digital infrastructure, and that process is on-going. I will give the committee as much information on that as possible.

In terms of the other options, Shona Robison’s summing up of my position on the interim arrangements and on giving them time to bed in was absolutely correct. Virtually no options should be off the table at this stage. However, I am concerned that, with some options, there could be confusion about accountability. For example, I would be concerned if there was shared accountability between the UK and Scottish Governments, partly because of the confusion but also because that would not deliver on the spirit of the Smith commission. The spirit of Smith is to devolve to the Scottish Parliament and therefore be accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It would be hard for me to reconcile a position in which another Parliament or another Government is involved in that accountability. However, I do not rule out any options.

The BTP, the BTPA, the Scottish Police Federation and others have previously come forward with a number of options, and we should look at what has been suggested. For example, many people will be aware of the academic work that has been done by Dr Kath Murray and Dr Colin Atkinson. We should be open minded to suggestions from academic and stakeholders, and I will be open minded to suggestions from other political parties.

Shona Robison is right to reference timing and timescales. Work on that is on-going. I will endeavour to keep Parliament updated, and I hope to give the committee, if not a definitive answer, a steer in the direction in which the Government and partners are going before the Christmas recess. I am happy to provide that update to Parliament and to the committee.

It would be good to get that update.

I wonder whether I could pin down the cabinet secretary a bit further. The Scottish Government was very intransigent in just going with one option and ignoring all the others. Is the administrative devolution option that the BTPA and the BTP came up with on the table as an interim option? Is the statutory devolved model of governance and accountability, with the BTPA retaining responsibility for railway policing in Scotland, also on the table?

I think that I have answered those questions in my previous answer. Although those options remain on the table, I have some concerns because of the shared accountability that would be involved. Those options do not go far enough and do not quite deliver on the spirit of the Smith commission. The Scottish Parliament should have powers over railway policing and accountability. I would be concerned with the UK-wide governance and accountability structures in the options that the convener mentioned, not just because they would go against the spirit of the Smith commission but because of the potential for confusion. Although nothing is off the table, I have some reservations about some options. However, I am open to being convinced and persuaded otherwise, because I am considering the options with as open a mind as possible.

The difficulty with you being so open minded is that the committee has no clear idea of exactly what is on the table. If there are problems with some of the models, could you flush out what those are? You might like to reflect on the matter and write to the committee with more specific reasons why you cannot say that you will certainly consider the administrative devolution model or the statutory devolved model at this stage.

Yes, indeed. If you do not mind, my preference is to get the stakeholders together to do some work and determine which path we are going to go down, without prejudging—I am doing my best not to prejudge. You asked me whether I have any reservations about those models. I have expressed where I have reservations, but I am not completely discounting those models. Of course, you have every right to ask me for further thoughts, and of course I will do that on the insistence of you and the committee, but I would be reluctant to do anything that would look like I was prejudging what will be an important discussion with the various stakeholders, including the BTPA, the BTP, the BTPF and others.

I understand that there is a balance to be struck, but a bit more detail would be helpful. Can you tell the committee when the consultation will start and how long you think it will take?

The conversations are already beginning and I am looking to meet stakeholders very soon. As I said in my response to Shona Robison, we will come back to the committee and the Parliament on the timeline, certainly before the Christmas recess, to give you—I hope—a definitive answer on the option that has been agreed by all partners. We may not get to that point—of course, I will keep you updated on that—but I am trying to strike a balance between understanding that there is a time imperative on the matter and making sure that we get to the best possible interim arrangement.

Okay. Daniel Johnson and Fulton MacGregor have supplementary questions.

I wonder to what extent there is a time constraint in finding a solution, given that railway policing is delivered and funded in accordance with police services agreements between rail operators and the British Transport Police and there is a natural contract cycle. Does that provide a window of opportunity that requires to be met?

It might well do so. The contracts are based on a four-year cycle. However, as I said in my answer to the convener, we are not wasting time and are getting on with the conversations that need to be had. I think that to settle on an option before the Christmas recess, if possible, is a challenging timescale. Daniel Johnson is right to raise the challenge and the pressure in relation to the timing; nonetheless, I have confidence that we will be able to give interim options by the Christmas recess, then pursue them apace.

Are you aware of when the four-year cycle will be up and the PSAs will be due to be renewed?

I am not entirely sure. Perhaps Donna Bell has that information.

I do not have that information now, but we can supply it.

I do not know that information off the top of my head, but we certainly have arrangements in place that have worked well between the railway industry and the BTP. If they need to come to agreements, they will be able to do that. However, as I said, I do not think that there is such a time imperative. If we get to an option on the direction of travel in which we want to go by the Christmas recess, that will stand us in good stead.

However, if you miss the renewal point, you will need agreement from the operators in order to bring in new agreements.

If we are creating new arrangements, we will have to negotiate with the railway operators anyway, and the break points for the arrangements are set up with the BTPA. If the arrangements are to be with another body, there will be a new arrangement anyway, and we will need to enter discussions about when it will start, the structure and the arrangements around that. The break points are a useful aspect of timing to consider, but they do not preclude our doing the work at another time. However, it would be a matter for negotiation with the railway operators at the time, if we were to do that.

It would be helpful if you would write to the committee with the renewal dates, if that is possible.

I am happy to do that.

Thank you.

I share the cabinet secretary’s disappointment about today’s news and the process that we are now going through, but I also give him credit for taking Police Scotland’s advice, which is what he and his predecessor always said they would do if concerns were raised.

12:30  

As someone who sat on the committee and spoke in the debate, I was convinced—as was the majority of the Parliament—that full integration was the best move. However, an area that the cabinet secretary has mentioned and that stuck out is the ability of Police Scotland to train all officers in railway matters, which would then allow fast responses to various situations that might arise. Can you reassure me that that will not be scrapped or lost in the interim period? Does Police Scotland have plans to continue with that training facility?

I do not know whether that is part of its plan. My understanding was that that would be done on full integration. However, again, I cannot, off the top of my head, pinpoint whether that was the case. If the committee will allow me, I might defer to Donna Bell on that.

However, the question speaks to my point about keeping full integration under review. Just because the Government has taken the advice of Police Scotland about not being able to give, at this stage, a definitive date for full integration does not mean that we no longer believe that it would have benefits. We do—and I have spoken about some of them, including seamless policing, single command structures and enhanced training. We still believe that that could be done, but it would be foolish of us not to heed Police Scotland’s advice.

Donna Bell might have more information on the training aspect. Police recruits were going to have an additional couple of weeks bolted on to the end of their training, but I do not know whether that will be happening.

That was one of the workstreams that were developed as part of the programme planning. Police Scotland did a fair bit of work on training needs assessment for officers. The committee would get more specific information on that from Police Scotland. A piece of work that sets out training needs for all Police Scotland officers and for officers who would transfer from the BTP to Police Scotland has been done, so Police Scotland might be prepared to share that.

Finally, cabinet secretary, representatives of the BTPA are in the gallery today. What reassurances can you give them that their views will be fully listened to and acted upon?

I have been heartened by the fact that the majority, if not all, of those whom you mention have welcomed the Government’s getting to the position of pausing the work on full integration and keeping it under review, while focusing very much on the interim arrangements. I have also seen them welcome the tone that we have taken on bringing stakeholders together, so that reassures me that our message is getting out to those stakeholders, with whom I want to engage as soon as possible. I have meetings with a number of them already set in my diary, and I am sure that we will speak relatively soon to those for whom we have not yet done that.

I can give them an absolute assurance that, as we have said previously, we value the expertise that their members have and hold. We also understand that there is still an element of uncertainty, which will exist until we make the interim arrangements and, potentially, the long-term plan. I am cognisant of that and, where I can give comfort to them, I will do my best to do so. However, as things stand right now, the current arrangements for the BTP apply. If we decide on the options before the winter recess, which I hope to do, we will try to give officers and staff as much certainty and information as possible.

I would like clarification. Part of the process of looking forward will be consultation of the SPA and Police Scotland. Will representatives of BTP officers and staff be involved at the same level, and as equal partners? Do you have a date for when you will actually meet them, given how germane their views are to the whole process?

I was chatting to Nigel Goodband on my way to the committee, and we have a date in the diary for a meeting with the British Transport Police Federation, which will be a personal meeting that I will conduct. Their voices will be equal to those of any other stakeholders in the process. I look forward to hearing from them. As I said, I know that stakeholders have come forward with other suggestions for potential models. I have reservations about some, but I am happy to talk to them about those options or any new options that might come from any other stakeholders.

Is the meeting date before the Christmas recess?

Yes. I hope to be able to give the committee options that the partners have agreed and settled on—I hope that we reach consensus—before the Christmas recess.

Thank you. That is very reassuring. That concludes our questioning. We will suspend briefly to allow witnesses to leave.

12:35 Meeting suspended.  

12:36 On resuming—