Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Official Report 573KB pdf

---

British Transport Police

Item 6 is a round-table evidence session on the British Transport Police. It is a pleasure to welcome the various witnesses. I do not intend to name everyone; we will do quick introductions from everyone around the table so that everyone knows who is who.

I am Margaret Mitchell, the convener of the Justice Committee.

I am the deputy convener of the Justice Committee.

I am chairman of the British Transport Police Federation.

I am general secretary of the British Transport Police Federation.

I am an MSP for West Scotland.

I am the MSP for Banffshire and Buchan Coast.

I am assistant chief constable in operations and justice, Police Scotland.

I am the MSP for Angus North and Mearns.

I am the MSP for Dumfriesshire.

I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands.

I am president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents.

I am the MSP for Orkney.

I am deputy chief constable of British Transport Police.

I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands.

I am director of the Scottish Institute for Policing Research.

I am the MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith.

I am the chief executive officer of the Scottish Police Authority.

I am the MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston.

I am a Justice Committee clerk.

I am the clerk to the Justice Committee.

Thank you. The idea of a round-table discussion is to stimulate conversation without formal questions and answers. From that, we get a better discussion and understanding of the issues.

I will open by highlighting that British Transport Police has proposed a number of options for the future of British Transport Police in Scotland. They range from administrative changes to full-blown integration with Police Scotland. I open that up for the witnesses to give their views on which option they would prefer. Who is going to kick off?

Thank you for inviting us. We have made clear in all our submissions that we understand the right and the will and direction of elected members. We are working to ensure that we contribute properly to any changes that emerge.

I will stick with the question on which would be the preferred model. If I had to nail our position down at this stage, we would recommend option 2, which is more of an interim and incremental development that would preserve the best of what we think is already in place for the force. It would not introduce additional layers of complication but would ensure that the Scottish Government retained direction, control and accountability and had control of funding, or some control of funding, whichever is chosen. The Scottish Government would take more of the direct leadership of the force and ensure that we are accountable, but the operational capabilities that we think are significant would be preserved. The transport policing ethos that we describe throughout our submissions is at the heart of BTP and is why it is different and specialist.

I should have said that if anyone wants to make a contribution, they should catch my eye or the clerk’s eye. You do not have to press any buttons because your microphone will come on as if by magic.

If you are saying that option 2 is your preferred route, the question is what you and some of the other panel members make of the haste in bringing forward such a significant change. What is motivating that?

I guess that it hinges on the influence that Scotland would like to have over the way in which the force operates. There have been a number of comments throughout the process, certainly from the public, to the effect that—to use a hackneyed phrase—if it is not broken, what are we trying to fix? However, the force executive and, significantly, stakeholders accept and acknowledge that the Scottish public and Scottish politicians want a controlling hand and a clear say in what the force is doing. Arguably, nothing is currently out of kilter with what that might look like. We are absolutely open to stronger accountability, and to more exposure of what we are doing and why, and why we feel that our work adds value for the public and for the stakeholders who run the railways. In a nutshell, that is why option 2 feels like a win-win for both sides, without adding additional expense and controls and without in effect creating a border for operational policing that we do not need.

You are saying that one of your strengths is that you have a free-flowing operation across the whole United Kingdom, which might be challenged by some of the other models.

Indeed. In our submission, we give examples such as football policing—we know that the movement of large numbers of people can be problematic for all passengers—and the impact of various incidents. Without putting too fine a point on it, the disruption to services that is caused by fatalities, bomb hoaxes or abandoned luggage can be significant, and we need to understand the impact of those incidents.

In stark terms, an incident that occurs in Edinburgh will very quickly, within an hour, impact on the midlands, London and elsewhere. We can swing into place automatically, without any control or negotiation, a response to that disruption, whether that involves managing people or rerouting services through our embedded staff in regional train control centres. It just happens: we do not have to negotiate and say, “We’ve had an incident—can you arrange for your people to take on these additional measures for us so that we can preserve services?”

If the committee will indulge me for a second, I will describe some feedback that I received from a train operating director just last week, although not in relation to this issue. He said that, years ago, if there was a disruption to service, replacement bus services would be rolled out and there would be marshals to deal with crowds and great big pieces of communication. He said that, now, there is a level of confidence that BTP will hand the service back to the train operator within 70 minutes. For 70 minutes the situation is inconvenient, but the operator can manage that because it is confident in the way in which BTP brings all the elements together. That includes the other train staff—it is not just a policing response. How do we preserve that without introducing a dual control that could introduce further delay? That is our position.

I will give the witnesses priority and then bring in committee members. Darren Townsend can go next, followed by John Finnie.

I reiterate the point that my deputy chief constable made by saying that our organisation acknowledges and respects the wish of not only the Scottish Parliament but the Scottish people to have accountability for and ownership of how policing is conducted in their environment. That is absolutely understandable.

The need to be evidence based is flagged in much of policing at present, and the term “evidence-based policing” is constantly used in the current policing models. One of our concerns is that we would like to know what the evidence base is, and where the decision is coming from, to change what has been shown to be a successful policing model that works not only for England and Wales but, more importantly in this respect, for the people and the travelling public in Scotland. I was hoping to get from today an understanding of the evidence that supports the reason for the proposed change.

10:45  

I am not sure that anyone round the table is qualified to give that evidence or talk about that, but it is most certainly a point that is worth making.

I have a quick remark on that. The change was brought forward as part of the Scotland Bill—that is where it emanated from. That does not reply to Mr Townsend’s point about the evidence for it; I am just saying that that is where it comes from.

Yes, but I think that the measure was introduced at the end of the Scotland Bill process and was perhaps not given the due scrutiny that it could have received.

I cannot let that pass, convener. Regardless of how the change was brought in, it was brought in and, significantly, it was agreed by all the parties. That is important.

I do not know whether the BTP submission was written by Mr Hanstock, but there is a recurring theme that things could only get worse. I presume that things could get better. For instance, there is the comment:

“an attack in Scotland may well be prevented in England.”

Under present arrangements, similarly, an attack in England could be prevented in Scotland.

Mr Townsend asks why anyone would seek change, given the good evidence about the performance of BTP. Not least of that evidence—although this is not a motivator for me—is that on the compelling financial imperative and the efficiency with which you discharge your duties, particularly in relation to tragedies such as fatalities on the line.

However, I would like to ask about option 3, because again your comments on that are predicated on a particular approach. You talk about option 2, which involves BTP continuing to

“align to principles set in Scottish Law”

but, in the introduction, you talk about “domestic burglary”, which is of course clearly not applicable in Scotland. Later, you mention that

“43 different forces were involved in delivering the service”.

That is 43 in England and Wales, so again there is not a broad perspective.

I particularly want to ask about the comment on

“The challenges associated with providing duplicate central support functions and ... dual accountability”.

Counterterrorism activity takes place not just across the UK but beyond that. As regards the support functions, I presume that the rail operating companies in Scotland, and not just ScotRail, pay for those as well, so why would there be any diminution of those?

We are not saying that there would necessarily be any huge diminution or difficulty in working with colleagues. That is absolutely possible, and we do it now. Our point about the 43 forces—44, with Police Scotland—is that there are protocols and understandings through which we take responsibility straight away without having to negotiate with command teams and leadership, whether we are operating across boundaries or in force areas. For example, we might be dealing with an offender who resides in a particular county, but we do not have to negotiate to operate in that area.

Of course, operationally, it is all absolutely doable. The issue is that we would introduce for operating companies the need to negotiate with two different police forces to arrange the funding and to understand who to contact in the event of delay.

I mentioned different train operating directors. If an issue is affecting the east or west coast main line, the directors will pick up the phone and speak to one command team. If that has to be done through two organisations, there is an issue about knowing where that team is and how to influence. However, those relationships develop. I do not think that any of the points that are being made is in any way a showstopper; our point is that it introduces another layer of consideration and potential complexity.

Yes, but you would acknowledge that there are arrangements that are not exclusively connected with transport that apply across the police services of the United Kingdom and beyond.

Indeed. Some of those of course relate to reserved powers, as you will undoubtedly be aware. All police forces in the UK have to commit to elements of the strategic policing requirement to deal with threats to the UK, whether those are from terrorism, organised crime, people trafficking or similar risks to the public. We are the police and we work in the public interest. I do not think that we would ever put any delineation on those responsibilities.

John Finnie has more or less asked the question that I was going to ask, which is on how you work across the country to deal with terrorism or threats of it. Will you expand a bit more on what you do now practically to ensure that there is almost a seamless operation across the country of sharing information and knowledge? What practical impact would it have on what you do day to day were the British Transport Police to be part of Police Scotland?

I will deal with your first point, on how we understand the intelligence picture. Like Police Scotland and all other forces, we are part of the national counterterrorism arrangements, and we work very closely with the Metropolitan Police-led counterterrorism arrangements. That could be seen most starkly when, last week, we dealt with a bomb that was left on the tube in London. That was a national counterterrorism response that involved a number of agencies and forces working together. Day to day, that is exactly how it would operate wherever an attack might occur. We often see the focus on London and other capital cities but, equally, Scotland has been touched by terrorism and attacks, and those day-to-day activities would swing into place.

It is about looking at the impact within a railway environment. I will again use the example of the bomb on the tube. That was not just about an incident that happened at North Greenwich, where we had to close part of a tube line. We also had to recognise that passengers travelling into London were disrupted and that there was fear of travelling. Straight away, we needed to consider how our resources across the entire country stepped up their visibility to reassure people that we were alert to any potential threat. That can happen in any case; it is just about a service mobilisation of the police. The point that we are making is that those things happen seamlessly. There are rehearsed plans, so when you press the button to move to critical, what needs to happen next is completely rehearsed and understood.

As we have made very clear throughout, putting in place any of the opportunities is not insurmountable. However, the point of having a dedicated resource is that it absolutely understands what an issue means for the railway and the people who use it.

Terrorism probably overinflates the debate, to be honest. If a terrorist attack occurs, the natural national response is to deal with it, because it is a threat to us all. A starker example would be the prioritisation of things that might not be seen as quite as important. How would somebody trespassing on lines be prioritised against somebody fighting in the town centre? How would somebody who is a victim of domestic abuse be prioritised over a member of staff in the railway environment who has been spat at? Those matters are all important and things to which we give enhanced priority, because they affect the confidence of people to work in the railway environments. If they do not have that connection and dedication, that undermines their ability.

I saw that situation starkly in London. I was responsible for the transport policing element in the Met, which had about 2,000 officers policing the overground section of transport. Those dilemmas existed for senior command. Should we resource the buses or those parts of the city that are suffering from youth violence and knife crime? Of course, we know where that decision would be placed. Our fear is not that the high-level things would be affected; rather, it is probably more that the things that are generally less prioritised would be affected.

That is very helpful. Thank you.

The deputy chief constable has possibly answered the question, but I wanted to echo the term about not simply focusing on terrorism. British Transport Police officers, whatever shift they work, don their uniform to parade and to work within the transport environment. It is not diluted by any other outside influence. That is solely their responsibility, what they specialise in and what they understand. Putting that responsibility into a bigger organisation like Police Scotland would make it just another cog in a bigger wheel. I genuinely believe that it would not get the same daily attention or that the same service would be delivered, because that is our sole responsibility. We do not have to attend calls into the city centre; we are solely focused on policing that environment. We are specialised because transport is a particularly difficult environment to police—it is unlike any other environment in policing.

I will follow that up, as I may not have fully answered the point. Where that flows through more pertinently is in the leadership. All the leaders and people who have been promoted in the force have experienced that environment as constables and first responders. Where I have seen it become difficult in other places is where people move between commands without understanding the specialism.

I will ask a very brief supplementary. Would a concern of yours then be that, if you are subsumed into Police Scotland and there is any kind of pull back from the daily operation of policing on the railway, the responsibility for the day-to-day incidents that happen on trains may be passed down to ScotRail staff?

I am not sure whether it would be passed down to rail staff, because rail staff could not deal with some of the policing issues.

The service that BTP delivers has been proved to be excellent. Let us not deny that this is about the service that we provide, not only to the train operating companies and Network Rail but to the travelling members of the public. I believe that if BTP were to be a cog in a big Police Scotland wheel, its priorities would be diluted in the priorities of Police Scotland, which are totally different from those of the train operating companies and the passengers.

I suspect that there are many communities that would love to dictate to Police Scotland how they would like police officers to function within them. The train operating companies have that relationship with us and get involved with discussing and negotiating those priorities. We try to achieve them, successfully on many occasions. I believe that that could be diluted were BTP to be part of a bigger organisation.

I am conscious that I have not heard any comments from Police Scotland or the Association of Police Superintendents. Perhaps Mr Crossan would like to come in before I take Douglas Ross?

There could be a detriment to service, and everybody gets that. I would also say that there could be an enhancement to service, from the ability to flex resource that exists within Police Scotland, which could assist with incidents on the railway. We have to make sure that there is no detriment to the service that the public gets from Police Scotland as it exists now or from the British Transport Police.

The bigger issue that has not been discussed is cross-border policing powers. We know that the British Transport Police do a lot of work for us now, particularly around events such as football matches, where they seamlessly move across the border, protecting the public. It would take a legislative change for that to continue if BTP officers become part of Police Scotland. If that legislative change did not come through, we could not provide the seamless service to the public that exists now.

Backfilling is already an issue in Police Scotland and we are now subsuming the British Transport Police into it. Do you have any concerns about that?

As has already been discussed, the intention would be to look at a railway division, or BTP being subsumed into part of ports policing, with protection round that. To my mind, that protection would not mean that the officers would definitely stay in a particular area. It would allow us to flex resource. We are all mature enough to understand that, at times, that would mean that people would have to move from doing something on the railway to assisting elsewhere. Likewise, within normal policing we would assist on the railway.

At present, Police Scotland responds to a lot of rail incidents as first responder, particularly in outlying areas. We have the relationship with BTP to deliver that. I am confident that, if we get the right processes in place, as Mr Hanstock has articulated, those processes and the relationships that we have in place will continue to deliver a quality and, we hope, enhanced service.

I will get to Douglas Ross, but I will let Deputy Chief Constable Hanstock come in again; it is the witnesses that we really want to hear from.

11:00  

I am very grateful for Chief Superintendent Crossan’s point. If I may, I will offer a counterpoint. Absolutely, we work in collaboration with Police Scotland now. Similarly, BTP officers respond to Police Scotland issues in some of the more remote areas. This is very much about policing communities and environments, and that happens now.

On cross-border legislation, of course it is entirely possible to legislate for jurisdictional capacity, but why would BTP provide that additional cover if it no longer has responsibility for Scotland? You mentioned events policing, which we do seamlessly now; we will move people from our C division up into D, which is Scotland, without any consideration of the implications. That is because that is our end-to-end policing. However, if we did not have responsibility for Scotland, why would we want to move those resources in that way? It would, I guess, be a commissioned service that Police Scotland would have to pay for.

I will bring in Bernard Higgins, because we have not heard from him.

Good morning, colleagues. I do not have too much to say other than to give a broad overview of Police Scotland’s position and give some general comments.

This is not land grabbing on the part of Police Scotland. We will respect and deal with the decision of the Parliament.

I agree with the deputy chief constable about the operational issue: it is complicated but not insurmountable. Operationally, we could police the rail network in Scotland. There would be some massive transitional issues to overcome and we would need to plan very carefully for the future, in terms of the intimate knowledge that senior officers have built up over a number of years, which the deputy chief constable talked about, but it cannot be said that the operational issue is insurmountable.

Things are more complex in the back office, in terms of conditions of service such as pensions and contracts for existing staff and officers. However, that is something that brighter people than me can work out.

On resilience, if we entered into a service level agreement with the rail operators, the chief constable would undertake to maintain that level. We would absolutely undertake to maintain the current level of staffing in train stations across Scotland. As Gordon Crossan rightly pointed out, on many occasions that would be supplemented by existing Police Scotland asset and resource.

Police officers are police officers, however. I am sure that the deputy chief constable would agree that if there is a threat-to-life incident outside a train station, the expectation is that officers will deal with it, as BTP officers would just now. To give the committee some reassurance, I say that we would enter into an agreement with the train providers and give the guarantee that we would maintain the current level of officer provision. In addition, we would afford grandfather rights to all existing BTP officers, which in essence would mean that if they wanted to continue in service with the BTP for the remainder of their police career, we would respect that wish.

I will let Douglas Ross in, because he has been waiting patiently.

I have a few points to make. I return to the point made by Rona Mackay and John Finnie. Yes, there was cross-party agreement on the Smith commission’s proposal to devolve the functions of the BTP to the Scottish Parliament, but there is certainly not cross-party support for the disruption of the BTP as it is—

I never said that.

I am speaking, John. There is not cross-party support for disrupting the BTP and subsuming it into an organisation that is still going through the considerable challenges that it has faced since the formation of the single police force more than three years ago.

I will start my questions with one for Police Scotland and John Foley of the SPA. What specialist and national forces available to Police Scotland are you currently withholding from the BTP?

None. We have a very close working relationship with the BTP. Whenever we have a major event, such as the Ryder cup, the Commonwealth games or the recent old firm game, the BTP is at the planning table. If it requires any of our specialist assets, such as dogs, firearms officers or public order officers, we would absolutely supplement it with them. That is the right thing to do.

It is absolutely the right thing to do. I am encouraged by what you said, because it stands in stark contrast to what the First Minister said earlier this year, when she told the chamber that the move to subsume the British Transport Police into Police Scotland will allow it to have

“access to the specialist and national resource that Police Scotland has access to.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2016; c 12.]

The First Minister is telling MSPs in this Parliament that you are withholding access, but you have just said clearly that there are no functions that you currently have—for example, the dogs, the organisation of major events such as the Ryder cup and so on—that you will not give to the British Transport Police in its current format. I am therefore very encouraged to hear your response, because it is certainly not the impression that the First Minister gave to Parliament.

It is certainly not for me to speak on behalf of the First Minister, but I should point out that our specialist assets are not routinely deployed to the BTP. It is a matter of request and consideration, although to my knowledge we have never refused such a request. What I am saying is that if the merger were to occur we would be talking about the routine deployments of additional assets into the railway estate, rather than deployments made on a needs-must and request basis, as is currently the position.

It is good to hear about the good working relationship that you currently have and which does not deny any of that availability.

I wonder whether Assistant Chief Constable Higgins or Mr Foley can tell us about the discussions that the SPA or Police Scotland had with the Scottish Government prior to the Government’s consultation on the future of the BTP in Scotland.

We would have had discussions with civil servants around that time to understand what such a move might mean. We have jointly set up a BTP programme board, on which the chief executive of the British Transport Police Authority, civil servants and I sit, to manage the process through to integration. Assistant Chief Constable Higgins referred earlier to what I would describe as workforce matters—pensions and so on—and we are working through those aspects to ensure that everyone involved is taken care of and that we get the best possible outcome.

That is useful, but you are talking about post the announcement of the Scottish Government’s consultation. The Scottish Government could have had a consultation on what to do with the British Transport Police in Scotland; instead, its consultation was on how to integrate the British Transport Police with Police Scotland. I am trying to get at what discussions were had with the Scottish Government before it announced its consultation, which basically and unambiguously said that the BTP would be merged with Police Scotland. It could have said that there were three options of varying degrees of complexity. Given that it has gone for the most complex and difficult option—that is, merger—it must have had assurances from Police Scotland and the SPA before the consultation that such a move was acceptable.

I cannot say that it is definitely the most difficult option, because—

I am saying that.

Yes, but I cannot. After all, we are working through it at the moment.

On that point, would it not be less difficult to maintain the BTP’s functions but have more accountability to and scrutiny by either the Parliament or the SPA? We could have taken that route instead of having to go into all the personnel, staffing and cross-border issues that Assistant Chief Constable Higgins has talked about.

I would not say that it is necessarily more or less difficult—it depends on the outcome at the end of the day. Clearly, Scotland has a single police service and the SPA would look to ensure that, on its integration into the single Police Scotland service, the BTP operated as effectively as part of that unit as it had before—if not more effectively. However, I cannot say that that is a definite outcome, because we are still working through the processes.

I think that the question is: what led the SPA or Police Scotland to say, “This is the definite model that we think is best, from a financial or any other point of view”? Were there any discussions on that?

We have not taken a view to that extent, convener, because we are largely following the will of Parliament as set out in the Scotland Act 2016. That is what we as an authority have to carry out—our function is to do what Parliament wishes.

My response is similar to Mr Foley’s. You will be well aware that this recommendation came out of the Smith commission. We have specifically not responded to the public consultation, in which I believe the three options have been developed, because we are simply awaiting the Parliament’s decision.

Is your response on this point, Mr Goodband?

Yes, it is. The Scottish Government has promised that specialist railway policing expertise and capacity will be maintained and protected within the broader structure of Police Scotland. I do not know how it can guarantee that, because the current level of uncertainty in the offices of BTP Scotland means that the retention of staff is not guaranteed. Certain members of staff are at a time in their career when they will not want to take a particular risk by changing terms and conditions, pension rights and so on and transferring over. Such a transfer would not be voluntary, but very much enforced. Therefore, some individuals will choose to leave policing if they are no longer to remain British Transport Police officers.

How can the Scottish Government and Police Scotland give the public a guarantee that expertise will be retained, in the knowledge that officers will potentially be leaving the force?

Douglas Ross has had a good go at the issues, so we will move on to Stewart Stevenson.

I will broaden out the discussion in a couple of ways. The BTP is long established and was created in another era. BTP staff are specialists in moving large numbers of people around, but at present they are responsible only for rail. I wonder whether their skills, abilities and experience could sensibly be equally applied to other modes of transport, such as ferries and air travel.

There was an incident last week in which it appears that a CS gas canister was released at London City airport. If the person in question had walked the four minutes that it takes to go from the airport check-in desks to the Docklands light railway, the British Transport Police would have dealt with the situation, whereas I presume that, as it happened, the local special branch officers and the armed response people who are resident in the airport dealt with it. The need for seamlessness in that respect strikes me as obvious.

There is a further complication. The current mayor of London is interested—as was the previous mayor, Boris Johnson—in merging the City of London police, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police in London. With Transport for London taking over many of the operational responsibilities for heavy rail in that area, that argument is being made. I wonder whether that touches on the argument that we are looking at today. It is probably quite different, but I would be interested to hear your views.

Six or seven million people a year travel from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London by air, whereas on the railways it is two or three million. Specialists from Police Scotland and Edinburgh airport might be deployed in different transport areas. Ports are one example: there are special branch officers at Stranraer for crossings to Ireland, and so on. I wonder what opportunities there are in that regard.

You touch on a number of issues that are very much live. Some members may be all too familiar with the fact that BTP was once responsible for ports policing, so it has a long history in that respect.

I will touch on two aspects. First, there is the question whether we should be doing more than transport policing, as it says on the tin. There is a debate in Government in London around an expansion of infrastructure policing that would lead to the creation of a single force—not necessarily called British Transport Police—that would be responsible for policing arterial roads, airports and the other transport modes that you describe.

You are quite right that airport policing is just another public service agreement that could be subsumed by a number of other areas. You pick up on the fact that the end-to-end journey is the important bit. The final link in the chain is some of the work that we do. Again, to bring the discussion right down to a basic level, we protect people from the theft of cycles, which is important so that people do not travel 30 miles on a commuter journey only to get to their station and find that they cannot get the last two miles home because somebody has nicked their bike. That is why our focus is sometimes at odds with what geographic policing might see as a priority.

Infrastructure policing, yes—

To interrupt briefly, you are not including the Ministry of Defence’s responsibility in relation to critical national infrastructure policing, which is another specialism.

11:15  

It is and there are a couple of models—they were referenced in our submission—that are under debate. I can almost paraphrase Assistant Chief Constable Higgins in saying that we could do that if asked. We could expand our remit to provide a seamless transport service if that were the will.

Turning to London, there have been a number of occasions when the Met has taken over responsibility for the three forces that operate in London. However, policing the tube and the rail networks that end in London is only one element of policing rail transport, as that somewhat misses the point of the end-to-end impact right across the network. Dealing with a fatality in Milton Keynes very quickly stops all movement of people at Euston and the other termini in that part of the capital. The issue is how we seamlessly make the connection without having to have layers of activity.

That argument would also apply if there was a road traffic accident at the entrance to a railway station or to a major airport. Unless we have a single police force covering this whole island that does everything that all police forces do, there will be interfaces.

Absolutely. Bernard Higgins made the point that we respond as we need to in order to preserve life when dealing with the most serious incidents. BTP officers have jurisdiction throughout England, Wales and Scotland; they are no longer restricted to the environs of railway stations. We have had any number of such incidents.

It is interesting that, when I moved across to the BTP, people gave me an epithet and said, “You are going to be walking up and down corridors collecting fares now, aren’t you?” and I said, “Actually, no, we do everything that I was doing in the Met, but we have the added complications of high voltages, heavy rolling stock, cramped environments, tunnels, cuttings and heights.” It is a double whammy when you are policing railways, rather than a single extension of what you do when policing the streets.

Do you cover light rail such as the trams in Edinburgh, Manchester or Sheffield?

I do not think that we cover the Edinburgh trams, but we cover the trams in Croydon and the metro in Newcastle.

I am conscious that we have not heard from Professor Nick Fyfe. If there is anything that you would like to say, Professor Fyfe, we would be happy to hear it.

To put my contribution in perspective, I should say that I am part of the team that is responsible for the evaluation of police and fire reform in Scotland. Our evidence looks at the challenges for integration of the police and fire legacy forces. In it, we have attempted to highlight the fact that we should be mindful of those challenges in considering integration of the BTP, although none of the challenges is insurmountable.

I have two or three key points. The first is about the need to clearly articulate the benefits of integration, to go back to Mr Townsend’s point about having an evidence base for this kind of policy decision. The question is not just why change is needed, but how change will happen—being clear about the process and the mechanisms by which integration will happen and about how integration will deliver specific benefits.

The second point is about recognising the timescales required for integration and the skills that are needed to achieve it. The journey of police reform over the past three years has taken longer than people anticipated. Three years in, we are in the consolidation and integration phase, rather than in the transformation phase. We are just reaching the stage of radical change. As we have already heard, the integration of the BTP into Police Scotland would be a highly complex task given the distinctive characteristics of what the BTP deals with.

My final point is about recognising the importance of differences in organisational cultures. A point made in the evidence from the BTP and the BTPA was that the policing of the railways has a distinctive culture and ethos. Just as was experienced in integrating the eight forces in Scotland, those cultural differences are really important for a smooth transition when creating an integrated service. We have to be mindful of all those things.

Do witnesses want to respond to that?

I would like to ask Professor Fyfe about the year 1 summary evaluation report that I got from Social Research, in which the Police Service of Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are described as still being on a journey. I think that you have made the point, Professor Fyfe, that that journey has not yet concluded and that evaluating it has been quite complex, and certainly the report says that the journey has not yet been completed and is still on-going. Therefore, is another complication on the journey required at the moment—one that adds another respect in which the organisations have to evolve and change?

I give credit to my colleagues in Police Scotland because, despite all the changes, they still deliver a magnificent service to the people of Scotland, without a doubt. However, could not these proposals make that task even more complex, and add a degree of uncertainty to a journey that is not yet complete and for officers for whom—as my colleague has touched on—there have not yet been any definitive answers on terms and conditions or pensions? Those are the areas that the staff association would pick up on for our members. I wonder what Professor Fyfe’s thoughts are about adding another layer of complexity.

The issue of timing is relevant. My point would be that we are just entering the phase of transformational change. A lot of work is going into a 10-year strategy for Police Scotland and we expect that the challenges around transformation will be just as great as the challenges around integration and consolidation have been in the past three years.

This is a critical moment in the development of Police Scotland, which will be dealing with a lot of change during the next three or four years as the new 10-year strategy is implemented.

The convener has asked my question, which was about backfilling and how resources would move between the two organisations.

I also had some questions about pension arrangements and the different conditions of employment. Have there been any discussions about that so far? What assurances on pension arrangements and conditions of service would be looked for to ensure that there is no financial detriment to officers should the changes happen?

That is probably the overarching complication. We have explored some of the operational limitations, which—arguably—it would be quite possible to overcome with some dual controls, although, ideally, we do not wish to see those. However, pensions, terms and conditions, legacy rights, travel arrangements, resettlement obligations and so on are all issues that are complicated by the fact that British Transport Police officers and staff are employees, not Crown servants. We have referenced some of the complications, but we have not yet seen a clear way through, although I understand that officials are looking at that. However, those are issues that are of deep concern to the members of the force, as the federation has pointed out.

On Professor Fyfe’s point about culture, there is a reason why our officers chose to join the BTP, which is a specialist policing role. They could have chosen to join Police Scotland, but they wanted to be part of our specialist force and function.

I have had the luxury of working in both environments—this is now my third police force—and I see a distinct difference in the policing in the BTP. The responsibilities and some of the things that officers do are unlike those in any of the other police services. In stark terms, in dealing with the tragedy of fatalities on railways, the officers deal with things that I am not aware of any other officers I have worked with having to deal with so frequently. I am not saying that other officers cannot do them—of course they can—but there is a reason why British Transport Police officers in Scotland elected to join that force.

To return to your point, preserving the rights and terms and conditions of British Transport Police officers is highly complex. As Bernard Higgins said, it will take some big brains to work through it, but undoubtedly it can be done.

Stewart Stevenson and Douglas Ross have brief follow-up questions.

My question is tiny. I am ignorant: I do not know what the difference is between Crown servants and employees. Is it possible to explain that concisely? If not, could you point me to where I could read about it?

It is probably worth explaining the formal distinction between the two. As employees, British Transport Police officers have employment rights in relation to redundancy and resettlement, and if they have been employed under a contract that guarantees travel rights, those have to be preserved. Police officers, on the other hand, can be moved anywhere and work to a nationally set pay and reward framework.

John Finnie also wants to come in. We will take his and Douglas Ross’s questions together.

My question is for Professor Fyfe, so John Finnie might want to go first.

I just make the point that police officers in Scotland are not Crown servants; they are public servants.

Professor Fyfe, in the “Conclusions” section of your submission, you note that there is a need for

“careful scrutiny of the financial, strategic and operational aspects of a merger”.

Indeed, you say that that is “imperative”.

Based on what we have heard today, it seems that the discussions with the SPA and Police Scotland were not prior to the consultation and about whether the proposed integration was the right way forward; they were about how it would be done after the consultation. Given that only the one option has been consulted on, has the Scottish Government carefully scrutinised the financial, strategic and operational aspects of the proposed integration? Has it not given the answer without looking for further information?

As I go on to say, I think that Audit Scotland and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland potentially have a role to play in carrying out further scrutiny before integration proceeds further so that there is scope for more detailed investigation into the financial and operational aspects.

But, ideally, that would have been done prior to announcing the preferred option, which is what the Scottish Government has done.

I can see that that would make sense.

I accept the point that Mr Ross makes, but I give the committee the assurance that the BTP programme board will review the financial aspects of the process. It is very mindful of the pensions and terms and conditions issues. It is my intention to consult colleagues in the British Transport Police Authority with a view to having HMICS carry out an inspection next year, which would be prior to any implementation.

We note what you say.

I note what Mr Foley says, but it misses the point that we keep coming back to, which is that there is only one option on the table in the discussions and consultations that are taking place with the British Transport Police. I, for one, do not think that that is good enough.

I want to make two points. My first is about Professor Fyfe’s comments on the continued change and transformation in Police Scotland, which I think is extremely worrying. In my region, a further eight police stations have been identified for closure, and there are continual challenges around rural policing. The new structures do not provide the level of service or the type of policing that the public have been used to and expect. If we rush this decision—to me, it feels that the current process is being rushed—there is a real danger that we will not take the public or individual officers in the British Transport Police with us on the journey, which will mean a loss of expertise and continued diminishing trust in what the single police force in Scotland is all about. I think that we really need to look at those issues.

My second point is about the number of officers who will be dedicated to policing the railways. We have heard the terms “diluted” and “flexing of resources” being used. To me, those sound like opposite sides of the same coin, which is about using police officers who are currently dedicated to railway policing to plug gaps that have emerged through the implementation of a single police force. I am not clear that when we say that we will maintain the current level, that actually means that there will be dedicated officers who will be solely focused on the railways. That is of great public concern.

11:30  

First, on the current state of Police Scotland—yes, we are in a transition period. We have a strategy based on 2026. I would argue that that is the action of a responsible organisation—moving forward and creating a more effective and efficient police service for the changing needs of all Scotland’s communities.

You could argue that this period of transition is the best time to integrate BTP into the wider Police Scotland, if that is the will of Parliament. Again, I make no comment on the decision of Parliament; I am merely saying that if we are going through a transition period over the next three or four years, it makes sense to me to include that element of it.

“Ring fencing” and “diluting” are not words that I used, sir. However, as the current strategic lead for Police Scotland, I was very clear that should the integration occur, we would ring fence the current establishment of BTP officers, which I believe is sitting at 225-plus staff, or thereabouts. Therefore, Police Scotland would enter into a service level agreement that would guarantee that that figure of 225 remains in policing of the railway estate, augmented by additional Police Scotland resources. However, the caveat would be that, in times of crisis, the chief constable would, of course, have the right to redirect those resources. I underline the term “in times of crisis”, which I hope gives you the reassurance that you seek.

I am sure that the term “in times of crisis” will provide a lot of reassurance to members of the public. For a lot of them, it seems as though Police Scotland is in crisis almost every day. What will happen to those officer levels? Will dedicated rail officers be considered as part of the review as well and potentially have their number reduced?

The short answer is no. We have said publicly, on a number of occasions, that we would respect the rights of the BTP officers to remain within the railway environment and that we would maintain the current establishment on our service level agreement with the railway operators.

So we are going to have a review based on evidence for every other officer in Police Scotland but continue to have a ring-fenced number of officers for the BTP?

Yes. The rail providers pay a sum of money for policing services, which is based on the number of officers who are deployed. If that sum of money reduces, clearly the number of officers would be reduced. They pay for the assets deployed within the estate.

That is clarification. Is there anything else that you want to add to that?

The only other thing that I would say is that the lead-in period for this is potentially to April 2019, as I understand it.

We have many specialists—whether they be in road policing or are forensic examiners—who undergo a massive amount of training, which is then maintained. My belief is that we would simply look at policing the railways with that sort of discipline. To deal with a fatal road accident on the A9, you need to be an accredited road policing officer or a crash scene investigator. Just as Deputy Chief Constable Hanstock has mentioned, there absolutely are specialisms within the BTP, and we would simply seek to replicate those along similar lines to the many other specialist areas that we have in Police Scotland.

In any transition such as the one that is proposed, we must remember the people who are involved. Our human resources department is still dealing with three and a half years of change, and I am in discussions with Mr Foley of the SPA to ensure that we are confident that, as the change takes place, we support the people who are moving and look after their wellbeing. We all know that change presents people with significant challenges, and we are also looking at the provision of training as people move across. I reiterate that there is an opportunity for people in Police Scotland to benefit from the experience of well-trained British Transport Police officers. Similarly, there is an opportunity for some of our BTP colleagues to learn from good practice in Police Scotland. Our HR strategy needs to be robust enough to look after people during the change.

Mr Higgins may be able to give a guarantee on the numbers but he certainly cannot give a guarantee on the expertise of the officers who police the railways. That expertise will, indeed, be diluted because—I can personally guarantee this—there will be officers from the British Transport Police who, as the deputy chief constable pointed out, joined the British Transport Police because of the nature of its role. If they had wanted to join Police Scotland, they would have applied to Police Scotland. Ultimately, those officers will want to remain officers in the British Transport Police and their expertise will be lost.

In addition, officers at a certain level of service will leave the organisation due to the uncertainty. Some of those individuals are in middle and senior management, and they provide leadership as well as expertise. I do not think that Mr Higgins can guarantee that he will replace that leadership immediately. I accept that that may be possible in the long term, but there will be a timeframe during which that expertise will be diluted.

Mr Higgins mentioned the figure of 225 British Transport Police officers. However, there is talk of the transition process going on until 2019, which is a real concern, because that number will potentially decrease the longer the process goes on and the more we progress towards 2019 without any concrete details or assurances around the pensions situation. There is the potential for a liability for the Scottish taxpayer because the pension scheme is entirely different. I ask Mr Foley to ensure that the matter is progressed so that we can try to give Mr Higgins some assurances around the numbers.

We must start to see some figures, detail and structure around how the pension situation will be managed. Given that BTP officers are in an entirely different pension scheme, they cannot just transfer into the current Police Scotland pension scheme, which is entirely different and is closed. We have officers with 30 and 35 years in schemes in which they will not be able to continue when they move to Police Scotland, because the option will not be open to them. In order to give some certainty and to try to sustain the number of officers if the transfer does happen, work needs to be done on the pensions issue, and it needs to be done quite soon. We keep talking about 2019, but we do not seem to be getting any further forward.

I understand Mr Townsend’s point and give a personal commitment that we will address the matter. We have started to look at it. The programme board to which I referred earlier has representation on it from the British Transport Police Authority, and work streams have been established to look at the issue and other workforce matters as we move forward. For me, the workforce issues are the top priority.

I am very conscious of the time. I will bring in ACC Higgins, then Mr Hanstock and then the three remaining members, whose questions should be quite succinct. I know that they have waited for a long time, but we are looking to stop at probably no later than 11:50. The questions and answers should be succinct.

Thank you, convener. I will be succinct.

Please do not interpret what I have said as trying to make the issue seem straightforward. It is not straightforward; I accept that it is massively complicated and complex.

I accept Mr Goodband’s points about potentially losing staff. In many ways, it is just the circle of life that people come and go. However, with a transition period of just over two years, the complex work that we would undertake would involve seeking to recruit within Police Scotland, training and identifying exactly what the training needs analysis is for BTP. I am certainly not trying to minimise the task in front of us, which would be massive and complex, but as DCC Hanstock has said on several occasions, operationally nothing is insurmountable. However, the terms and conditions are massively complex.

I will keep what I say very brief. Some of this issue has been covered.

It is easy to retain the numbers; it is a matter of prioritisation. I have seen elsewhere that the obligations of the contract can be maintained; the issue is what skills are put in. If we had a choice, would we put our experience towards detective roles, addressing risks to the public in other areas—whether that is in domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation or other high-profile areas—or into the area that we are discussing? Transport can be at risk from that.

Similarly, I agree—and we have said a number of times—that the operational delivery is possible, but we might want to ask why British Transport Police exists now if it is so easy for it to be absorbed into a geographic response. Forty-three forces are not screaming to take responsibility for policing the railway. On the rationale for why the specialism is so valued by the industry and passengers—the nearly 3 billion people who use it annually—there is a case for saying that it has not just emerged out of the want for some enthusiasts. There is a real need for policing the railway in a different way.

I want to follow on from the exchanges on the back of Oliver Mundell’s questions.

We have focused very much on the impact of BTP and the complexities of what the Government proposes to do under the legislation, but the state that Police Scotland is in in its own progression strikes me. That has been mentioned many times.

I wonder what the response would be in Police Scotland to concessions that are given in order to address the concerns that have been quite rightly and legitimately raised, on behalf of their members, by those who represent BTP. The more that is conceded, whether in respect of pensions, terms and conditions or ring fencing numbers, against the backdrop of an on-going review in which all of that is off the table for Police Scotland, the more we will end up folding BTP officers into an organisation in which, right from the get-go, there will be a degree of conflict, and an eye will be cast over the treatment of component parts of Police Scotland compared with that of those who are currently in the force.

I suppose that that is more a question for ACC Higgins. It strikes me that, because we are focusing on BTP issues, we are rather losing sight of some well-documented issues that currently confront Police Scotland and are reflected in statistics on morale, for example.

The important distinction to make is that Police Scotland would be paid by the rail provider for a service. There would be a contract between us and the rail provider, so we would be legally and lawfully obliged to maintain those officer numbers.

Mr McArthur made a valid point about pay and conditions. When Police Scotland was formed on 1 April 2013, we brought together eight legacy forces and two other organisations, and the terms and conditions have still not been resolved. Therefore, a number of officers retain legacy terms and conditions that are not applied to other officers who do exactly the same job. For example, the allowances that dog handlers receive depend on the part of the country that they are in. That is based on the legacy arrangements. To change that, we would need to go to the Police Negotiating Board.

Over the life of Police Scotland thus far, we have had the unusual situation of officers across the country being on slightly different pay and conditions because of their legacy force arrangements. There is therefore a comparison with what would happen with BTP officers transferring in.

11:45  

I entirely understand your point about the relationship with rail operators, but against the backdrop of a revenue deficit that seems to be ballooning—the last figure that I saw was about £27 million—will there not be pressure on Police Scotland to look at those areas such as rail operators where revenue is coming in and say, “Well, in order to deliver the commitment on maintaining numbers with regard to former BTP policing, we’ll have to hike the charges to rail operators”? Even maintaining the numbers will have consequences, given your current position.

To add to that question, I wonder whether there is also a risk that the stakeholder base for the BTP service could just walk if it is not satisfied. Would such an assessment be right?

I am not aware of the intricacies of the contract arrangements, but I believe that the rail operators are required to provide funding. Is that correct?

Part of the franchise agreement is that operators have to pay for the policing requirement.

And that is regardless of the service, which is where I think Liam McArthur is coming from.

Indeed. I was about to ask whether that was capped or not. How is that figure arrived at?

There is a negotiation over cost, and there is quite a challenge around budgets. I know that a significant concern of the industry is that any additional cost for new pension arrangements or for boosting and bolstering legacy rights will be charged back to the operators. They might say, “How is this beneficial to us? We’re paying even more for what we have currently got and arguably for a worse level of service.” That is the shorthand.

Do they have any option, or do they just have to accept the hiked charges?

Charges can be defrayed but, again, that would not be without challenge. We are talking about quite a complex set of financial arrangements in that respect.

Good morning and thank you for your contributions so far. I have two quick questions, the first of which is for ACC Higgins. Can you elaborate on your response to Douglas Ross about the operational benefits of a specialist railway policing service with direct access to Police Scotland’s local, specialist and national resources?

Secondly, with regard to the earlier exchange between Mr Townsend and Mr Foley on pension arrangements, might there be any open-mindedness around the SPA becoming a participating employer in the current scheme, particularly for existing members? Can you reveal more about any discussions that might have been had about the creation of a new scheme and whether it is envisaged that that is something that would be required? I presume that that would be a defined contribution scheme, but if you were able to give any further detail—I appreciate that that might not be available yet—I would certainly be interested in hearing what stage discussions might have reached with regard to pensions.

I guess that the answer to your first question is volume. A significant amount of specialist assets, whether they be dog officers, firearms or public order officers or crime scene examiners, is spread across the entirety of Scotland. After all, there are areas where the BTP might not have the resource and it would take several hours for it to get where it needed to go, whereas Police Scotland can provide that assistance. I guess that there is also the issue of specialisms that Police Scotland has and which the BTP also has but which are not based in Scotland.

I should re-emphasise that we have an excellent working relationship with British Transport Police, and we will happily deploy resources as requested. However, the difference with this course of action, should it occur, would be that, instead of waiting for a request to come in, we would put additional assets into the railway estate on a more routine basis.

That is absolutely right, and if we had to work in collaboration on something of such significance, we would do so. However, specialist skills are not at the heart of what the BTP gives the industry; it is our specialist knowledge of the things that cause disruption, delay and impact. Dealing with crime is a policing matter. We all do that; we draw on the skills that we need, and at times of most extreme need, we all pull together.

What is different with policing the railways is the ability to understand an incident and its impact much further along the line. The industry treasures the fact that we can risk assess that quickly and with some precision and return the service quickly. That is where we add true value to the industry, the economy and the ability of those franchises to operate. If we put more costs on, that could bring into question viability and the ability to deliver a service that is actually treasured.

Fulton?

Thanks, convener. I—

I am sorry, convener, but I asked a second question.

I can answer your second question quite quickly, Mr Macpherson. We have not been a part of any discussions on pensions at this stage. I am aware that contact has been made with Railway Pensions Management Ltd, which is the pensions management company that looks after all the pensions for the BTP officers, but as a federation we have not been party to that. As a result, I cannot tell you where those discussions have got to and whether it was being looked at as a participating employer.

Perhaps I can add some clarity. I have already referred to the BTP programme board, which has representation from the British Transport Police Authority and the Scottish Police Authority. We have been looking primarily at legislative matters thus far, but in the summer we set up six workstreams, one of which will absolutely focus on the issue of pensions and terms and conditions. The work is under way, and I am quite sure Mr Townsend will be contacted very soon.

So, just to be clear, the opportunity to become a participating employer in the current scheme is still, as things stand, available.

To be more specific, I think that there is an open mind on that. I believe that you are referring to the possibility of admitted body status, which can sometimes be given in pension schemes. The issue will be looked at. I cannot give you an answer at the moment, because the work has still to be undertaken, but we are absolutely considering the options.

I want to make a very small point in relation to earlier comments that were made about Police Scotland and to challenge them somewhat. For example, the word “crisis” was used, but we should reflect on the fact that that might not be the view of the committee. It is certainly not my view. Since Police Scotland was set up, it has faced many challenges, and I believe that it has done so head on. I am confident that, whatever the Parliament’s decision on this matter, Police Scotland will be more than capable of implementing it.

Did you have a question, Mr MacGregor?

No.

You just wanted to put those comments on the record.

Yes, convener.

Okay; that is noted.

I think that we have had a worthwhile and full-flowing discussion, in which a lot of very important points about legislation have been raised. That legislation will be very important and will be scrutinised—by the Justice Committee, we hope—very fully.

With that, I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence, and I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the room to be rearranged for the next panel.

11:53 Meeting suspended.  

11:59 On resuming—