Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Official Report 909KB pdf

---

Urgent Question

Good afternoon. I have selected an urgent question that will be taken as the first item of business today. As a result, decision time will be postponed until 5.15. I believe that all members have been notified of that by email.

---

British Transport Police in Scotland and Police Scotland (Merger)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the merger of the British Transport Police in Scotland and Police Scotland is to be delayed.

We are committed to delivering the benefits of a single command structure to provide integrated infrastructure policing in Scotland. A safe and secure transition to the full integration of the British Transport Police in Scotland into Police Scotland is our aim, and a clear focus on public safety is paramount.

The joint programme board that was set up to oversee the integration has been advised by Police Scotland and the British Transport Police Authority that operational aspects of the integration will not be ready for April 2019, as planned. Ministers have, therefore, agreed that a re-planning exercise should take place in the coming months to ensure that a clear and realistic delivery plan is in place for all aspects of the merger. As part of that process, we will take advantage of the opportunity to enhance communications with staff, officers and rail operators about the merger.

It is the case that Scottish National Party ministers forced through the merger of the British Transport Police in Scotland and Police Scotland despite serious concerns and overwhelming opposition from BTP officers and staff, and despite clear warnings from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland about the lack of a detailed business case on the benefits, disadvantages and costs involved. Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone has now warned that those unresolved issues mean that integration cannot be achieved on the Scottish Government’s terms “without compromising public safety.”

Given those concerns, will the cabinet secretary accept that the joint board has been handed a poisoned chalice and that this politically driven merger should not go ahead until a proper business case has been published, scrutinised and approved by the Parliament?

I will deal with a couple of factual issues. The idea that we forced through the proposal is somewhat bizarre, given that we are a minority Government and had to seek the support of other parties for it. In fact, I recall that the Liberal Democrats supported the proposal at stage 1 of the Railway Policing (Scotland) Bill but changed their position part-way through the process. It was hardly a case of our forcing a proposal through Parliament.

Liam McArthur referred to the HMICS report. That report related to matters back in February and March of 2017, prior to our producing for Parliament many of the details that it needed for its consideration of the Railway Policing (Scotland) Bill. Since then, a significant amount of work has been done.

It is important that Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone’s comments are not taken out of context. I will quote directly what he said, because the way in which Mr McArthur has sought to interpret his remarks is somewhat misleading. He stated:

“Over the last few months, we have been assessing the feasibility of delivering integration by April 2019. It has become clear to Police Scotland that there are unresolved issues which mean effective operational integration cannot be achieved by that date without compromising public safety. Independent consultants have endorsed our position on this.”

The issue that DCC Livingstone highlighted was that the assessment that Police Scotland has made of its state of preparedness is such that it will not be able to deliver integration by April 2019. That is why, on Tuesday of this week, it put to the joint programme board the proposal that a re-planning exercise should be undertaken with a view to setting a new integration date. The joint programme board agreed to that proposal at the request of Police Scotland and the British Transport Police Authority.

The Government was repeatedly told that its deadline and its proposals were unrealistic. DCC Livingstone has now confirmed that, yet I am told that somehow I have taken his comments out of context.

The Scottish centre for crime and justice research has today published a report into the impact of integration on BTP officers and staff in Scotland. Its survey found that 83 per cent were unsupportive or very unsupportive of the merger, leading to 64 per cent having given serious consideration to leaving policing because of the merger.

One respondent with more than 30 years’ experience in the BTP said that the service was being “destroyed for political reasons”. Another said:

“It is this political motivation which has angered officers most”.

Yet another respondent said that the merger was

“more transformation at an already turbulent time within [Police Scotland’s] short history.”

Given that damning indictment of the Scottish Government’s plans, does the cabinet secretary really believe that it is sensible to proceed with a merger that commands the confidence of a mere 7 per cent of BTP officers and staff? Does he now regret refusing to consult on any other options that were put forward for delivering the Smith commission’s recommendations?

Let me pick up on the issue of the date that was set for the integration. It was agreed with the other parties, not imposed by the Scottish Government. Liam McArthur is factually incorrect—yet again—on that matter.

I highlight to Mr McArthur the benefits that will come from the integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland. It will create a single command structure and open up aspects of railway policing to specialist resources in Police Scotland that the BTP in Scotland does not have. It will also ensure that we have an infrastructure arrangement for railway policing in Scotland that protects us from the United Kingdom Government’s plans to abolish the BTP and integrate it with civil, nuclear and Ministry of Defence policing, creating national infrastructure policing. Those plans would leave us in an even more vulnerable position, potentially with Scotland alone having any form of railway policing.

The member often seems to ignore the fact that, when the Smith commission’s recommendations were made and legislation was subsequently introduced to implement the powers that were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, that placed a requirement on the Scottish Government—indeed, on the Parliament—to be responsible for railway policing. We need to put a structure in place for that.

Liam McArthur referred to previous or alternative plans. The reality is that all the alternative plans would leave us in a confused situation in which there would be a lack of clarity about who exactly is responsible for railway policing in Scotland, as legislative responsibility would still be with the Secretary of State for Transport in London. The BTPA, which is appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, would still be responsible for railway policing but I have no doubt that, despite that, when anything went wrong, Mr McArthur and others would declare that Scottish ministers were responsible for an area of policing that was ultimately the responsibility of ministers in London.

Providing a clear line of accountability—which is what we will deliver by integrating the BTP into Police Scotland—and opening up aspects of railway policing to the specialist skills that we have in Police Scotland will support us in delivering first-class railway policing in Scotland under a single command structure and ensure that we can deploy specialist assets to support railway policing as and when it is necessary, beyond what we have at the moment when that is requested through special arrangements.

Several members have pressed their buttons, requesting to speak. If we can have very short questions and short answers, we might get through some of them.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the public do not understand that we can have one police force for a railway platform and a separate police force for a road that is a few yards away? It is not joined up. Can the cabinet secretary reassure me and the public that he is committed to joining those forces together?

I have four train stations in my constituency and, when an incident occurs within the train station or thereabouts, it is for Police Scotland to respond. If some sort of specialist input from the BTP is required, the request for that input will be made in the same way as the local commander would make a special request if there was a missing person and air support was needed to search for someone. Police Scotland officers will deliver the day-to-day policing of railway stations and their environs.

We continue to be committed to the Parliament’s legislative agreement to have an integrated single command structure for policing in Scotland with the BTP integrated into Police Scotland. The vast majority of the travelling public want effective policing, no matter whether they are on a road, on a railway or anywhere else, and that is exactly what we intend to deliver with the integrated structure.

The Scottish National Party did not listen to the Scottish Conservatives when we said that this was unsafe, unnecessary and unwanted by virtually everyone connected with Scotland’s railways. Now it has been forced into an embarrassing, humiliating U-turn, having told the chamber only four weeks ago that a delay would be “preposterous”. The cabinet secretary’s claim that two years was a “luxury” has been totally discredited. Given that we now know that eight in 10 BTP officers and staff oppose the merger outright, will the SNP listen to them and consider calling the whole thing off?

Presiding Officer:

“We will 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.”

Those words are from last year’s Scottish Conservative Party and UK Conservative Party manifestos. Mr Kerr’s hypocrisy in coming to the chamber and trying to kid on that he does not intend to abolish the British Transport Police does him no favours; yet again, the depth of his amateur politics is on show in the chamber. [Interruption.] When he says that I claimed that two years was a “luxury”, he is wrong yet again. It was Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins who said that on behalf of Police Scotland. Yet again, that is an example of the amateur nature of Mr Kerr’s politics when it comes to these issues.

It is very clearly not within Mr Kerr’s ability to understand that we want to make sure that we deliver the most effective infrastructure for policing in Scotland. That will be done through a single command structure, as was set out just last year in his own party’s manifestos in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.

These are robust exchanges—let us not make them personal.

Liam McArthur has already made reference to the research that was published today by the Scottish centre for crime and justice research, which had responses from two thirds of serving BTP officers. It states that there is

“a deep strain of scepticism, cynicism and opposition towards the integration”

of the BTP into Police Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary therefore use the pause that he has announced to listen to those voices of front-line officers and halt the merger? If not, what does he have to say to those officers about why he is ignoring their professional front-line opinions?

As I have said, we remain committed to the integration of the BTP into Police Scotland, as was agreed by this Parliament. The replanning exercise that is being done by the joint programme board gives us an opportunity to look at some issues that still need to be resolved.

As I said in my opening comments to Mr McArthur, that exercise will allow us to take advantage of this additional time to enhance our communication with staff, officers and the rail operators on the benefits of integration and the merger. We will take the opportunity to do exactly that: we will address the issues that BTP members have in relation to the integration plans.

I support the cabinet secretary’s pragmatic decision.

The cabinet secretary constantly refers to integration. The integration of information technology systems from the different police forces that now make up Police Scotland has been a challenge. Police Scotland leads on counter-terrorism in Scotland, and there is no suggestion that that will not continue or that plans are not in place to deal with things. However, are there any hitherto unknown factors that would impact on operational efficiency in the future that have led to the cabinet secretary’s decision?

Integration of IT is a key part of ensuring a smooth transition to the integration of the BTP into Police Scotland. That is one of the issues that Police Scotland is giving considerable consideration to.

The member is right that, when it comes to counter-terrorism, Police Scotland has the lead. I have made the point in the chamber before. When we went to critical security level, Police Scotland had the lead. The BTP has no armed officer capability in Scotland. It has limited capability around specialist assets; most of that capability is provided by Police Scotland, as was the case when we went to critical security level.

In a number of the operational issues that are being worked on by Police Scotland in partnership with the BTP, the aim is to make sure that all the various scenarios are worked through to ensure that the required operational arrangements are in place in Police Scotland to pick up matters as and when necessary.

That is one of the issues that Police Scotland has reflected on over the past couple of weeks. It will look at the progress that it has made to date, to identify where there continue to be operational sensitivities or risks and what it can do to mitigate them. The replanning exercise will allow it to reflect on the whole process and to put plans in place to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deliver in relation to such issues once integration takes place.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the decision demonstrates that communication between the joint programme board, the Scottish Government and the UK Government is effective and working well?

There has been a suggestion that the measure has been some sort of diktat that has been issued by the Scottish Government. That is clearly wrong, given the parliamentary support that was required for the legislation. Equally, the planning and integration arrangements are being made jointly and co-operatively. The Scottish Government, the UK Government, the BTPA, the BTP, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are all working collectively to ensure that there is a smooth transition towards the integration of railway policing in Scotland—and that will continue to be the case.

It makes complete sense, in my view, that the BTPA and Police Scotland raised issues of concern around the timeline following their own reflections on where they were in being prepared operationally, that they took them and escalated them to the joint programme board, that the board responded to them and agreed that there should be an extension or a period of reflection around replanning, and that having an extension to the integration timeline should be looked at. No doubt, had those concerns been ignored, members in this chamber would have said that it was outrageous that they were not taken into consideration and acted upon. The joint programme board is there to do exactly that: it is there to look at the risks, the planning and the progress that has been made and to continue to take action as and when necessary to ensure that there is a smooth, safe transition of railway policing into Police Scotland.

I raise an important point. If the report that is out today turns out to be true and two thirds of BTP officers leave the service as a result of the merger—which they have indicated they may do—does the cabinet secretary accept that that would be a huge loss of expertise and experience from the force? Will he publish a full analysis of the drawbacks of his proposed merger, as he has been asked to do by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland?

The member may not be aware that the HMICS report came before we had published the explanatory notes and policy memorandum that went with the legislation in which the measures are set out. Therefore, the report pre-dated the point at which the information was placed before the Scottish Parliament. The member may want to go away and have a look at that if he is keen to be informed about it in greater detail.

In relation to the survey results, I do not underestimate the concerns that members of the BTP will have around the significant change that will come about as a result of BTP’s merger with Police Scotland. Some of same concerns came out when we moved to having a single force, when the eight legacy forces were concerned about the impact that that would have on individuals. As I have already set out to members, we will take advantage of the opportunity that we now have with the replanning process that is being introduced to redouble our efforts and to enhance our communication with staff, officers and the rail operators. A significant amount of work has already been undertaken by their representative bodies, in partnership with the Scottish Government, to try to provide them with as much information as possible and as early as possible about future plans.

I have no doubt that the member will welcome the fact that the British Transport Police Federation and others have welcomed the approach that the Scottish Government is taking to the issue and the decision to allow the replanning exercise to go forward, as that will offer its members an opportunity to be reassured around these issues. The issues that the member seems to be concerned about are the very ones that the replanning process will allow us to refocus on and address. The BTP Federation has recognised that for its members.

I am conscious that three more members wish to ask questions, but I am afraid that it is time to move on.