 Fawr i'r gwrs. Welcome to the Justice Committee's 13th meeting of 2018. It just feels like the 30th some days. Apologies have been received from Liam McArthur and Tavish Scott will be joining us as his replacement shortly, I hope. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking item 3 in private, which is consideration of the Committee's forward work programme. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. is an evidence session on the proposed integration of the British Transport Police in Scotland into Police Scotland. I refer members to paper 1, which is note by the clerk in paper 2, which is a private paper. There are two panels of witnesses today, and I welcome the first panel, Chief Constable Paul Crawford, British Transport Police, Nigel Goodband, National Chairman, British Transport Police Federation, Tom MacMann, Director of Business Integration Police Scotland and Callum Steel General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. I thank all the panellists for their written submissions, which are always immensely helpful to the committee prior to us taking questions. Before I go to questions from all the members, I want to pose one question to all the panellists to begin with. Given that fully integration has not yet started and given the escalating costs and yet uncautified and the risks identified, do the panellists consider the suggestion by Kath Murray in her submission that option 2 should be looked at and considered? That is the option for a commissioned service for the integrated option that should be looked at at this stage. Are we going to generally be taken? I will go round the panellists and ask their views. Thank you very much to the committee for allowing us the opportunity to attend today and provide evidence regarding the integration. As you will undoubtedly be aware, we have suggested that the welcome pause is the right time to look at any alternatives and look at any benefits and disbenefits of any alternatives. We would encourage the Scottish Government and the Joint Program Board to give consideration to a commissioned service type model. We think that it is important that now, knowing more detail than what was originally known at the beginning of the proposed plan, that that detail should be taken, it should be reassessed, reevaluated and it should be compared to any alternative method of achieving devolution because I can reassure the Justice Committee that the British Transport Police Federation stands is not against devolution. It is simply that we do not believe that full integration is the answer to achieve that. I think that the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police Authority have submitted papers in the past as this debate has continued for some time. My position must be that the Smith commission recommendation, which was then converted into law in the Scotland act, conveys on the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, the decision around how the function of the British Transport Police will be devolved. It is a matter for the Scottish Government to decide how that is carried out. There are clearly options that people have put forward, but that is for the Government to decide how they intend to take that devolution forward. Scotland's simple position is that we respect the will of this Parliament. We work through the Joint Program Board, which has overseen the development of the legislation to move towards full integration. We respect that. That is the basis on which we are progressing. Thank you, convener. The SPF position would be similar to that of Mr Clowder and Mr McMan. It was quite simple, but we have to respect the will of Parliament. That is helpful when we now move to detailed questions starting with... Oh, sorry, there is a supplementary from Rona Ben-Marie. Thank you, convener. It was just on what you were saying, Mr Goodman. I wonder if I could ask you if you have been in contact with the UK Government about the Conservative Manifesto Pledge to integrate BTP in an infrastructure policing model? I have indeed been partied to discussions with the Home Office and civil servants in the Home Office regarding infrastructure. The last instruction that we got was that infrastructure policing was not being considered by the UK Government currently because of other priorities. I have since made some inquiries because, as we all know, it did appear within the Conservative Party Manifesto, but, as quickly as it appeared, it also was removed from the final draft that went to the Queen's Speech. I am informed that there is no work being conducted by the UK Government towards infrastructure policing. It was quite alarming to hear Mr Matheson in the Scottish Parliament suggesting that it is the Conservative Party's will to abolish British transport police. Even if infrastructure policing was indeed on the table, it was never to abolish the British transport police. It was to merge three forces and to enhance a national policing service that was going to be suggested, and BTP were going to remain the force that pleased the railway infrastructure. There was never, even in the suggested plan, was there a proposal to abolish British transport police. That is my personal understanding of what we were being informed by the Home Office, but, since that meeting, we have been told that there are no plans currently to look at infrastructure policing within the UK Government. It was just in relation to the convener's first question, and probably particularly to Mr Goodband and to Mr Crowther, on your initial responses. We did have the debate before about options, and we consulted on the bill that was being put forward, and the Parliament then supported full integration. That is the decision that has already been taken. Do you not think that, rather than using the time to—I know that the date has been delayed for the full integration because a number of issues have risen during that time, but surely the time should be spent, rather than looking at alternatives, to actually trying to iron out those problems that have been identified? I think that it concerns me in your initial response that that is how you think the time should be spent when, as I say, the Parliament has taken that decision, and that is how the Parliament has decided to move this forward. I think that there are a number of important issues that have been identified, and I think that that time needs to be spent trying to iron that out so that this transition is as smooth as possible. I totally accept, however, from our perspective. The reason for pause was that there was the view that an effective and safe integration could not be achieved by April 2019. If there is a concern around risk and safety to the public, then is it the Scottish Government's will to try and manage those risks and continue with the high level of costs to try and achieve full integration, or is it an opportunity? I am not suggesting that, for one moment, full integration should be totally ignored, but to look at an alternative to see if devolution can be achieved in any other way, other than full integration, that might eliminate some of the risks that have been identified by the NTT and the Joint Programme Board. George, do you want to come into the supplementary? It is just a quick supplementary, convener. When you said that the Tory manifesto had that initially, and incidentally the Scottish Tory manifesto had that as well, it might have been cut and pasted on to that as well. However, one of the things that you said is that you believe that the UK Government is not moving towards it because it was not in the Queen's Speech, but there is quite a lot of manifesto that was not in the Queen's Speech. If I was you, I would be thinking that there might be something else there. However, the other point that you said as well was the merger of the three services. The original idea was that the BTP was going to be just business as usual, even if it did a merger of the three services. Surely that is hugely naive. I did not use the term business as usual. I used the term that the British Transport Police will remain with the responsibility of policing the railway infrastructure and the expertise and the specialism. The service would obviously change. The service would change between that. We would not be called three different forces. In essence, we were told that the new name was potentially the national infrastructure police force. However, within the plan, we were suggesting that the officers, the specialism and the experience of British Transport Police will remain within the infrastructure of the railway. To me, it sounds very similar to the Scottish Government's idea of Police Scotland. Well, no, because what is happening with the national infrastructure is that it was to have a national police force throughout the country in England, Wales and Scotland. I believe that the Scottish Government's will is to dismantle British Transport Police in its current form and create a national force within Scotland alone. We have got a first set of questions from Daniel. I believe that you also have a supplementary question, Daniel. Just following on from that last line of questioning, it is my understanding that the delay to the integration programme was poos in place. In the words of not just the Federation, but the police Scotland was arising from public safety that it could not be achieved on that date safely. I was just wondering if members of the panel could bring to life specifically what those safety concerns might be and what the risks were that caused the delay. I was just wondering if you could have a description of that. I can only comment on my position from a staff association and our concern around the loss of specialist railway police and skills and expertise. I have already commented within the committee that there was a fear that a number of officers would leave British Transport Police if they were forced to transfer over to Police Scotland because of the fear around financial detriment, particularly with pensions. We are now already seeing that those officers are indeed leaving. We have had in the region of 51 officers over the last three years that have left. We have had 20 officers and staff leaving the last eight months since rural centres have been achieved and 70 per cent of those that have left have cited the merger as the reason for them leaving. If that expertise and that experience is leaving, then to suggest that non-experience police officers—I am not decrying the services of Police Scotland because they provide an excellent service in the jurisdiction that they are currently in—have no knowledge and no experience of policing what a dangerous environment is. To suggest that they will come on to the railway infrastructure and provide an enhanced level of policing service is somewhat naive and misleading. I would suggest that, without that expertise and without that experience, that potentially could cause problems with public safety. One misunderstanding and one miscommunication could create a fatality. One fatality is one too many simply because of a misunderstanding. That is why we have concerns. Can I quickly ask the other members of the panel if they would agree with that characterisation of the risk that needs to be addressed before integration proceeds? I think that Nigel makes points around the retention of staff, which I think is a significant issue. The primary issue around safety from my perspective in terms of the decision to pause is related to command and control systems and information technology. In the latter half of last year, a proposal emerged that there would be a partial integration rather than full integration. We have been working exclusively on a full integration model, nothing less. What we were very concerned about, and I think that Police Scotland shared our concerns, as we delved into the realities of command and control and managing incidents with disparate IT systems within Police Scotland, that posed a safety risk. Railway policing is a national function. At the moment, it is a GB national function. Under the proposals, it will be a Scotland national function, and it has to be managed in a national way. That means that the command and control structures need to look at it from a national perspective, the way crimes are recorded, the way incidents are looked at to look at repeat victims need to be looked at at a national level. Currently, Police Scotland IT systems do not enable that to happen. The suggestion was that the BTP would provide IT systems to enable that to happen, but when you delve into the detail of that and the connection between Police Scotland command and control systems, for example, a system called STORM and our command and control system, a system called Control Works, and ours is integrated with all the systems within BTP and STORM. It presents some significant risks that you would miss vulnerable victims, you would miss repeat victims, or indeed the systems by which are absolutely necessary to communicate with drivers of trains and the important infrastructure within the railway could not be guaranteed within the Police Scotland IT systems as they currently are. That led me and others to the view that until such time as the IT systems within Police Scotland can deal with that, it would be unsafe to proceed. Mr Winkman, would you agree with that characterisation of the risk? I would emphasise the conclusion that we reached in February that April 2019 was unachievable, was a shared view. Both the chief and Mr Goodband have given some flavour of that. I think that it is important to refer to what is in the submission to the committee that Police Scotland's risk appetite around this work is low. What has been legislated for as a standalone railway policing function, we are ready to set that up when we stood up the MTT that I referred to in my submission, we looked in some detail across the work streams and assessed just how much further work required to be undertaken. What became clear, and it was a shared conclusion, was that we would have to develop systems and the proper integration of those in partnership, the insufficient progress had been made towards that and that actually, bearing in mind the low risk appetite, it would not be sensible to progress on the basis of April 2019. That became an immediate issue because, as of April 2018, the BTPA were proposing to cease contracts and so on and to progress their strategy to make clear that they would have no further functions within Scotland. In light of that context, our view was that more time was needed, more effort needed to be put jointly into the work. It had to be properly programme managed. We had brought a strong element of that through the MTT that needed to be stepped up. We needed to dedicate sufficiently more resources to do the work. I do not think that any of the issues that have been highlighted, though, are insurmountable. I think that it just requires more time to get it right. I understood. There are a couple of supplementaries on that safety issue, John Finnie and Liam. Well, it was on the issue of staff numbers of a May that Mr Goodman mentioned. Do we cover that later, if not, by what we have just announced? Thank you. Mr Goodman, in relation to the numbers that you quoted there, what is the natural turnover of your members? There is normally an expected percentage. What is the natural turnover? All of the people who left in previous years would have been replaced by people who would have to be trained up. The information that I have received in relation to BTP Scotland is that, on average, it is 13 officers per year. Since rural ascent, it has equated to potentially 21 officers per year, so there is an increase. The longer the time taken—one would theorise—to put that through, the more disruptive it will be, the more impact it might be on morale, the more likely it might be that people will leave and not transfer across. What do you plan to do if, whenever the transfer date is, there simply are not enough people to transfer over to resource the function? Where will the resource come from? We are confident that we can dedicate the resources across more than 17,000 police officers with a positive partnership in the replan period and a journey towards full integration. We are confident that we can scale up our people. The training needs analysis that I know this committee took an interest in previously has been undertaken. Much will rely on partnership. We are moving towards a model that is standalone for Police Scotland, but we recognise that the journey towards that will have to be based on continued partnership. Their working relationships with our BTP and BTPA colleagues are very positive. That in itself underpinned the commitment to a replan. It was a joint conclusion and an acknowledgement that better joint working had to be progressed. Forgive me, Tom. I did not quite understand that. What you are saying, just to be absolutely clear, if there are not enough people to transfer across from the BTP at the point of transfer, Police Scotland will draw people in from other departments, badge them up and train them and assign them as BTP officers. Is that correct? I would expect there to be a period of shadow running. We would need this part of a strategic workforce plan to assess what the likely drop-off was in terms of legacy BTP officers in the D-Division. That is day-to-day business for Police Scotland that we will plan the workforce. We will look at where resources are currently allocated, what likely retirement dates are and so forth. I would be confident that we would deliver a plan that would enable us to ensure that staffing levels were maintained, and that is obviously what the rail industry itself would expect. It is on the people element of it that the SPF has got the greatest interest. Up till now, our involvement has been remarkably limited, for a whole variety of understandable reasons, not least amongst them, that BTP officers are not their members. I think that, whilst the issues of the merger or the takeover, depending on which particular side of the fence you are sitting on, have been developed so far, they tended to ignore the human part of it, which I think is the element that causes the greatest interest to myself, and particularly Nigel at the end of the table. On Mr MacArthur's questions specifically, I do not see this as being a particularly difficult issue, not least because I do not think for a minute that Mr Crowther will allow the BTP in Scotland to have diminished the number of police officers up to the date that they transfer into Scotland. At the appointed day where they transfer over, there have already been assurances from the service that they will come into an integrated transport division within Police Scotland. The number of police officers on the appointed day will have been in BTP in Scotland on the day before, and they will be in the transport division of Police Scotland on the day after. That particular element of how many I go to transfer over will be dealt with by the British Transport Police Service in its own right, in that it will not, unless Mr Crowther is going to disabuse me off my notion, that it will not allow an unacceptable, low level of police officers to be available to deliver a policing function in Scotland. Whilst I can understand the concerns about the options, the simple fact is that the legislation makes it clear that on one day you will be in the BTP and the next day you will be in Police Scotland, so I do not think that it is as much an issue as the reality would bear out. I do not disagree in the totality of what has been said. I think that there are some practical issues that we would work through. We have got very close work in relationship as we approach the date of integration, so I will be responsible for policing the railways in Scotland until the day that the Chief Constable of Police Scotland takes over, and I need to make sure that that is effective. I have quite an interesting challenge ahead, because it is true to say that there are some people within the division in the BTP who wish to transfer to the England and Wales part of the BTP. Whilst maintaining our service, I would want to see how I could work with colleagues to make sure that we looked after everybody's interests. There will come a time when it would probably be impractical, indeed, to recruit new British Transport Police officers when they should be Police Scotland officers who are then seconded to British Transport Police to work in transition and start to build up. That would probably be the most sensible way of approaching things nearer the time. In terms of numbers, I do not think that numbers are the issue, with the right number on the day that they transfer over. The issue for me is more around skills and expertise and outlook. Nigel is highlighted, and all of these things will work with it. I am not shroud-waving or anything like that, I am just talking through some of the practicalities. Nigel has talked about normal turnover and a slightly accelerated turnover that we have seen. There is the reality of how many people will retire between now and whenever the date will be. If, for example, there were a two-year period, there are around 54 people who reached the age of 50 who could retire. When you look at what that looks like in the spread of resources, there are about 30 per cent of constables, 25 per cent of sergeants, 50 per cent of inspectors, and all the chief inspectors could retire in that period. Mr McBride, the chief superintendent, retires later this year. The challenge for me is how I maintain the specialism and the specialist focus that is present in BTP officers, which I think is the thing that we have been saying all along is the most difficult thing to replicate. Numbers will transfer over. The task that we have all got is making sure that the people who end up policing the railway going forward have the skills, attributes and attitudes that are needed for that specialist police in function. I would like to look at how the programme is being managed. In particular, one of the latest developments has been the introduction of Ernst and Young to head up the PMO. Has the MTT been disbanded and replaced by the PMO? Does it still exist? How does the governance around the PMO function actually work? I noticed in our briefing that it describes Ian White being a member of that, along with Police Scotland, BTP, BTPA and Scottish Government. That sounds like a mix of function and governance, and I would just like some clarification on how it all fits together. A number of positive discussions with the Scottish Government. We support the move for the overall programme in which we set to effectively stand its height to set up a fit for purpose PMO. The MTT served a purpose. It brought both sides in terms of Police Scotland and BTP together effectively. We came to a solid conclusion in terms of April 2019. In terms of the roles within the PMO going forward, I do not want to pre-empt the evidence that you will hear in the next session. The Scottish Government has appointed a programme director who will lead the PMO. That is not an EY person. EY were already involved due to a contract that we had signed alongside BTPA with the MTT's programme governance. We have suggested that the PMO, working underneath the Scottish Government's programme director, would benefit from EY's input. However, I defer to the SRO, Donna Bell, to explain to you in a bit more detail as to how that will work. What is the scope and remit of their work? Does it extend to formulating a business case, for example? Not as far as I am aware. The purpose of the PMO is to oversee the journey towards full integration, to lead the work on the re-plan and to address the weaknesses that were identified and called out in February, some of which related to staff engagement and so on. We look to support the work that the PMO will lead in that space. Does it reflect, then, a lack of the required expertise in terms of integration planning and engagement? Is that why EY and EY were brought in? Our view at the point that the MTT stood up, if you recall, was based on advice, and I have said that in my submission from HMICS. We were given notice late last summer that they felt that internal governance within Police Scotland in terms of the gold group that ACC Higgins had convened should move across and become a more formalised programmatic structure. We took that on board. HMI also advised us that we should work more closely with BTP counterparts. I was brought into this role in August of last year, so the first task was to take that advice, stand up the MTT programme and take a realistic clear-eyed view as to the deliverability of April 2019. As well as that, we put reorganised work streams and put sufficient resources behind them. As I have said, what we acknowledged in February was that we needed more time. My concern is that, if Ernst and Younger had been brought in because there weren't sufficient skills and expertise to deliver a transformation programme and integration programme such as it was, what level of confidence do you have that you will be able to continue that integration programme beyond the point of transfer? I think that it begs a certain question. I am confident that, with continued specialist help, we are required. Again, I would look to the PMO to brief you on their views on that. The work can be taken forward. Again, I would refer to evidence that was provided to the committee around the creation of Police Scotland. I recognise that it is different. It is more specialist. It is a different skill set. We absolutely recognise that. We know that there are different processes that we will have to go through to make sure that Police Scotland has the capability, but I am confident that we have the ability to integrate what is the division at the moment and create real-way policing division in Police Scotland. On that question of integration, has the integration of all the legacy ICT systems concluded in Police Scotland then? No, that is work that is still on going. It is still under way. Five years on from the creation of Police Scotland, the legacy systems and ICT systems are still unintegrated, and yet you are contemplating integrating yet another system in a very different form of policing, and you are confident that you can do that. I am just wondering why your experience of the integration of Police Scotland leads you to that conclusion. There is a member asking specific questions about that, Daniel. You have had a few shot, but if you could answer very briefly. I would only refer Police Scotland 24, 7, 365 days a year effectively to Police Scotland. It keeps people safe. I am not questioning that. We are confident that, yes, there are legacy systems. We have had played out in the Parliament around the ISEC's failure and so on. That is being addressed. We are developing our ICT strategy, work around core systems and so on, which I can come on to speak about. Thank you. Police Scotland embraces Transport, Police Authority, chaired the MTT board. Could you confirm who is the accountable officer for the work of the programme management office? The work of the programme management office will report to the SRO, and that is a shared role between Dan Moore and Donna Bell. So they are the accountable officers? They will be accountable, yes. Does the new arrangement provide for a sufficient level of independent governance and financial oversight in your view? I think that, as part of the re-plan, we would look to consider options around what assurance we seek about the policing model that we seek to stand up. Good morning, gentlemen. Have any of the lead organisations for the joint programme board projects changed? Not to my knowledge. Again, the opportunity that the re-plan gives us is to review that. Are you looking to make changes in your work as a director? No. We want to work within the framework that the PMO will sit on top of. All right. Okay. Police Scotland has indicated that, in its submission, that it has now been an accountable officer with delegated strategic responsibility for all aspects of railway policing integration in Police Scotland. Can the panel tell me who that might be? I should clarify that the submission that I made to Parliament called out that the SPA last summer asked Police Scotland, effectively delegated to David Page, who is my boss, deputy chief officer, to oversee all aspects of railway policing integration. That is what prompted, along with the HMI recommendations, the establishment of the MTT. There will be, obviously, operational accountability. That will sit with ACC Mark Williams on the Police Scotland side. Our engagement at the joint programme board effectively gives us a level of shared accountability. Okay. Any other comments from anybody? Thank you, convener. Convener. Good morning, panel. I have a number of questions to point out that was raised earlier, which is around the pension situation of the integration that is taking place. First of all, Mr McConn, I just wondered if you could update me as to the progress in terms of the proposition from the Scottish Government to put the relevant scheme members into a separate pot of the BTP for Superannuation Fund and just give me an indication as to progress on that point. Yes. The proposal that a segregated fund be established has progressed to the point where SPA, through its accountable officer Kenneth Hogg, has written to the Scottish Government looking for what is technically biased, I think, as the employer's covenant. It is effectively seeking indemnification for any future liabilities that may arise around the fund. Progress is being made on that and setting up that new defined benefit scheme for the relevant scheme members. We are certainly in regular contact with the trustees. At the moment, we await the response from the Scottish Government around indemnification. Mr Goodman, you raised a number of points about pensions in your submission. I want to highlight that you have some concerns in your view about the financial impact on officers serving in the BTP and officers serving elsewhere in the UK around the fund. You state some points about anxiety and emotional impact, which are quite nebulous, but what I am interested in is the evidence. We know from material advice in 2017 that this is a fully funded scheme, which is a healthy and positive scenario. The pension liabilities of £97 million are balanced by about £99 million of pension fund assets. I know that you are on the management committee for the scheme, so perhaps you can talk about the health of the scheme. It seems to be a discord between the health of the scheme and the concerns that you are raising. I clarify the position. The scheme is indeed a healthy scheme. It sits at 102 per cent in that, if everything all went wrong, every member could be paid. What is being proposed is that some of those assets—I do not know the figures that you have quoted of £99 million, but I am not sure where those figures have come from. We, personally, have not seen any advice from the actress. We have been in contact with the trustees of our pension scheme and they do not recognise those figures themselves. I am sure that Mr McMahon could update you with regard to what advice Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority have had on that. From our perspective, we are not sure what the proposal is suggesting. There are officers who are going to be currently serving members, but it is a close scheme. As they retire, that membership will reduce. In the proposal itself, there is an acknowledgement that their contributions could increase because of the age of the membership. Is that the case with every pension scheme? Well, no, because ours is not a closed scheme. Ours is an open scheme and will continue to be open whilst officers join British Transport Police. In this proposal, it is a closed scheme. No new members who are going to be in the Scottish Police or Police Scotland railway division can join the scheme. The membership will fade away. The contributions will increase undoubtedly, but the liabilities within the proposal are no suggestion of who is going to cover the liabilities. To suggest that £99 million from a current pension scheme, which the Scottish Government, to be frank, has not paid one penny into, but can suggest that it can come along and take £99 million from a scheme and put it into a segregated scheme, is something that I do not fully understand and nor do my members… Are not the liabilities for active BTP officers based in Scotland? If there was a separate defined benefit scheme being created for active BTP officers based in Scotland, surely it would be right and proper for those assets to then pass into such a new scheme. That is the question that we would have to seek legal advice on, because this is being in a way forced upon a scheme that the members do not want to transfer into a closed segregated scheme. That pot will be weakened in comparison to the main pot. What will have to be taken with the assets will be the retired officers that ultimately have already paid into the scheme, who identify those retired officers. There are officers who are from Scotland and Proud Scots who served in England, but now are retired and reside in Scotland. Do they become part of those assets in the segregated pot? There are also officers that live in England and have retired in England but served in Scotland. There is confusion about how those assets are going to be simply picked out of our main scheme and transferred into a segregated scheme. Can it be done legally? Is it lawful to do that? Secondly, who has agreed those £99 million worth of assets? That is the value, because we have not seen that advice. The trustees themselves have not seen that. I have had confirmation of that only this week. When Mr Matheson mentioned the £99 million, I can reassure him that the members of the British Transport Police Federation are on the phone to me, saying that they are suggesting that they are going to take some assets out of our main pot. Does that impact on officers in England and Wales? I am saying, well, I do not know, because I have not seen this advice, nor am I a lawyer. If it is a fully funded scheme that is 102 per cent, you said earlier, surely it would be in the interests of both parties if, under the agreement based on the democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament, following negotiations to make sure that members of the scheme employees, when the transition takes place, would surely be in everyone's benefit for negotiations to take place in a constructive manner to make sure that those assets that are relevant to Scottish scheme members pass in order to make sure that that scheme is healthy. It is a complicated matter, I am trying to get to that point, because I think that it is extremely important that, going forward, in order to make sure that the agreement that is made, that those members who are transferring continue to benefit from the pensions that they deserve, that everyone approaches that in a constructive manner. The assets that apply to Scotland should surely be passed to Scotland. I do not disagree with you, but you have it in the nail on the head. It is about that negotiation, and that has not taken place. There has been no negotiation with the members of that scheme to suggest where the assets come from, who makes those decisions. Ultimately, it is the trustees, but it is a membership scheme that pays into that. It is not a Government-run scheme, and those officers have yet not been consulted with. There has been no engagement regarding the pensions or even the terms and conditions. Those are the officers that are sitting in the shadows waiting for that decision to be written down in paper and for them to make their decision whether they should retire, because there is another element to the segregated part. If we transfer 230 British transport police officers into a segregated part, we have heard from the chief constable that 54 are able within the two years to retire. Immediately, 54 officers will take their potential lump sum from that part of 230. That will have a massive impact on that part. From day one, there are 99 million pound assets. From that first day, it could be impacted on massively. What you have to think about is not just simply day one. We have got to consider those officers who are young in service, who still have 30-35 years, and the liabilities that need to cover their fund. That is something that is simply not being considered from the information that we have possession of at the moment. If I may, that highlights what I see as being one of the biggest frail pieces of what has been undertaken so far. Some of the human elements are being done last, whereas undoubtedly most of the legislative stuff has been dealt with. The technical stuff is being thrashed out, but some of that technical stuff has got an impact on the human side. If we collectively, everyone would agree with that, but if we were to turn this round and make sure that the human things are taken care of first, then the technical stuff will work around it. I mean, I have nothing but the highest degree of sympathy for the position that the British Transport Police officers find themselves in, because at this point in time they just do not know. I think that that is a failure on all parts that have been involved in this up until now. Had the SPF been involved at an earlier stage, I know that we could have a very good bilateral series of discussions with the British Transport Police Federation. We would have made sure that the officers were being front and centre of this. It is understandable why there are doubts regarding the position of pensions for the British Transport Police officers, because no one has done a like for like comparison. I cannot believe that that had not been high on the list of things to be considered. It is assumed, and it may well be the case, that the pension arrangements for British Transport Police officers are superior to those for lack of a better term, home office police forces. Only an actual comparison would provide information to that, would provide a definitive answer for that. The issue of pensions is, of course, absolutely germane to the other issues that are associated with the status of the British Transport Police officers when they transfer over into the Police Services Scotland, because of the position that police officers hold as office holders under the occupational pension scheme that is available to police officers off the Police Services Scotland. That is the only scheme that is available to police officers in Scotland. However, I do not know—in fact, I should probably have refreshed my memory on the exact provisions, but I know that there are provisions that currently exist that allow transfers between the home office forces and the British Transport Police Service just now that allow for cash equivalent transfer values from one pension scheme to the other. I would need to remind myself to exactly what limitations are placed upon that, but it is certainly not unknown for officers to have transferred in the past. However, I think that there are possibly some opportunities. This is where I would make the biggest plea with the pause that we have in the procedures just now, is to look at the human side and see what can be done to address many of those concerns. We need to look at what would be known in the Police Services, the 1987 police pension scheme, which is the broadest headline comparability to what I understand the British Transport Police pension scheme to look like, and to have engagement with officials. Granted, that is not official within the Scottish side, as the officials at Whitehall, to see whether we are willing to open the 1987 pension scheme to allow transfers. Should that be deemed desirable by officers that are going to be affected? If we are able to get those kind of proper options presented to officers so that they know what they are looking at rather than face uncertainty, then I think that they will be in a much better position to deal with some of the technical issues afterwards. Whereas just now we are trying to solve technical issues like understanding whether necessarily that is going to be best for the officers or whether it is not. Because if I was sitting as a British Transport Police officer, I would be sitting saying, well, I know what I have just now but I do not know what I am going to be having in the future. Surely it makes more sense to say to officers, and I understand the importance of a triple law guarantee to many in the British Transport Police Service. But no detriment does also not mean that there is no betterment. It also does not mean that should there be a decision by individual officers to volunteer to seek betterment in some conditions, that might not necessarily come as a consequence of a willingness to accept perceived detriment on others. To me, the logical thing to do is to allow the staff associations, and I am sure that I am saying sure as probably a bit much, but I am optimistic that my colleagues from the British Transport Police Federation would agree with me that allowing officers to see and compare on a contrast basis exactly what they could be looking at would help to resolve a huge amount of the human issues that are being presented, or certainly being raised by those that have concerns about it. The legislative stuff will take care of itself and then the technical stuff will take care of or fall from the agreements that could be reached between the parties. I agree absolutely with the view that the human element of this has been neglected. It is part of the rationale for a re-plan. Pensions are difficult to understand and engage with. It has a bottom-line impact on people, and that needs to be taken seriously. It is work that has been led through the workforce workstream under the joint programme board. Decisions around segregated schemes and so on were taken. Police Scotland's role in that has been to seek a view in terms of future liabilities and so on, but, going back to Mr McPherson's point, we would work on the basis that there is a fair and equitable split of assets and liabilities, because that is the approach that we want to take to full integration. Still, on the integrated costs supplementary, Tavish Scotland, this is your first time at the committee in public. Do you have any relevant interest to do that? I will ask a few very brief questions on costs. What has been the cost of integration so far for both Police Scotland and for the British Transport Police? I am happy to answer that. In terms of specific costs, we have discussed EY's programme management support. That is £400,000. That is a shared cost between ourselves and the BTPA. We have engaged EY to undertake due diligence around the finance assets and liabilities of the BTPA. That is costing approximately £300,000. In terms of Police Scotland's dedicated resources and any recruitment that we need to undertake, that will be subject to the re-plan, so I will not be able to put a figure on that at the moment. There are costs associated with the setup of the segregated pension scheme, which is in the region of £400,000. In terms of the re-plan itself, which will bring more clarity around costs, among other things, we have paid EY 117,000 to take us through phase 1, which is effectively a review of work streams and a refocus of activity in order to have the best possible foundation for the re-plan itself. That is £1.2 million so far. What is the budget for the period between now and April 19, if that is the date that is now being worked towards? April 19 is not what we are working towards any more in the re-plan. We will give us a new target. We have not established the date yet. Is there a budget for the future period? We will establish what that is. We have the police reform budget, of course. How much is the police reform budget every year? You will have to forgive me. I have the one note that I meant to bring with me. What is the police reform budget? I have not got the number in front of me, so I do not want to make something up. However, that budget gives us flexibility, and we are in agreement with the Scottish Government on access to that going forward. You have spent £300,000 so far on Ernst and Young. Do they continue in the future? In terms of the programme management role, we have engaged them until April 2019, the original integration date. In terms of their role in relation to the re-plan, again, that would be a decision for the SROs as to whether they wanted to continue to engage EY, and there would be an additional cost associated with that. Do we know what that is? It was in the region of £600,000 to £700,000. More than already the £300 that has been spent on it. If EY were to stay with us on a re-plan that would run effectively into the autumn. So £1 million on Ernst and Young. But there is no decision being taken as to whether that continues. Thank you very much, Mr McMunn. I just caught you earlier on, so I forget to which of my colleagues and which you said on the business case that there was no plans as far as you knew to have a business case. Is that right? Not as part of the re-plan exercise. We are working towards the stated will of the Parliament. It may not be a fair question for you because it presumably predates you, but why was there not a business case done, given Audit Scotland and Government policy on business cases? I am not really the person to answer that question. Who would be at the interest? Your next panel. Can I keep that one for then? Just a couple of clarifications, Mr McMunn, for me. Just on the points that Mr Scott has just put to you, on all of those transition costs and all the costs that are being incurred, who ultimately pays that? Where does the money come from to pay all those invoices? Those amounts that I have given you details of are being paid by Police Scotland at the moment, although, as I have said, the EUI programme management support is a shared cost with BTPA. You were asked about the pension scheme, so again, just a matter of clarification, if I may. Do you know what the set-up costs of any new scheme will be and the admin costs of that scheme going forward? Again, who is going to pay that? We believe that it will be in the region of £400,000 to establish the segregated scheme, as to the on-going administration. I do not have a number, but I can certainly seek that and write to the committee if that would be helpful. It would be helpful. Just going back to some of the points that have been made earlier, one would rather have thought that that would have been established up front. If you were going to set up a new pension scheme, one would have thought that the running costs of that on-going and who was going to pay for that would have been established. However, you mentioned earlier on, perhaps in this regard, that the SPA had asked for an indemnification on future liabilities from the Scottish Government. Do you have any oversight on whether the Scottish Government will give that indemnification and, in any event, how much is that indemnification likely to be worth? Again, that would be your next panel that could give you some insight as to whether Government was likely to offer SPA that indemnification that their accountable officer has sought. As to a quantum, I think that there is a spectrum of costs. We have heard discussion about the current, based on the most recent valuation, there is a surplus. There is a future possibility in terms of deficits, but that is associated with any pension scheme. Ultimately, we would be looking for, or SPA, or seeking Scottish Government cover for whatever those liabilities may be in the future. Are you able—you said that there was a spectrum just out of interest, are you able to give me the approximate range of that spectrum? Based on Government actuarial department advice that has been shared, I think that the most dramatic numbers that have come into the public domain in the last few weeks are in the region of £100 million. I think that that is based on the absolute worst case scenario that is based on a cessation event now. It is moving the investment strategy of the scheme immediately on to a more risk-averse approach in terms of investment in guilt. I am not an actuary. I will do my best to describe the positioning on that. The numbers that have been around in the public domain are to emphasise an absolute worst-case scenario that you would expect actuaries to provide. Given that we do not know, because the scheme has not been valued since 2015—it is due for valuation this year, I understand—we would be looking or SPA have sought that cover in terms of whatever the liabilities may be. Just to be absolutely clear, the SPA could be seeking an indemnification of around £100 million from the Scottish Government. On an absolute worst-case scenario based on actuarial advice that has been provided, I would emphasise that it is estimated and highly dependent on market circumstances. Estimated by whom? Estimated by the Government Actuarial Department. I am where you indicated that you had to leave at 11 o'clock. Before you leave, I can ask you about the proposal that the integrated cost, the additional cost, comes from the reform budget, and I presume that that was in place for the smooth transition of the single police force. Do you have any concerns about that? Is there anything going to be affected by that decision? Thank you, convener. I have my favourite subject, the amount of funding that comes to the police service, and I have to say that in general I think that the Parliament has not provided enough. Of course, when it comes to the creation of the police service in Scotland, much of the reform funding that was identified was lost in the paying off of that for a number of years. That was particularly unfortunate. The reality is that, as with anything that happens in Scottish public life, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill somewhere. Decisions that are taken in Parliament have to be much by parliamentary decisions on funding to make sure that the will of Parliament is able to be discharged by those that are asked to discharge those functions based on funding, but certainly given that the police service has got needs of its own at this point in time that are not helped by a lack of funding—and I will make no apologies for making that point. The removal or the additional burden of funding is something that I would hope you, as parliamentarians, will be pressing the Government on to make sure that that is addressed. Okay. Just a last supplementary—it may or may not involve Mr Steele—is there anything that you want to add after Daniel Sass asked his question before you leave? It is not addressed to Mr Steele. It is just a clarification on the line of questioning from Tavish Scott. The list of figures that you gave there, if I heard correctly, are all tributal to Ernst and Young, an external provider. What are the internal costs of the integration programme? Those would be in addition to those in terms of staff time and so on from Police Scotland. As part of the replan exercise, we are reassessing that. There was a formal bid for resources that I reported to the SPA in December. It was in the region of £1 million in terms of the opportunity cost, if you like, of existing staff working on that. That is being revisited. As part of a new approach to the planning towards full integration, a resourcing plan will be part of that. Revisited upwards or downwards? I have absolutely no idea at the moment, but I expect us to dedicate people towards that in order to achieve the will of Parliament. Is there anything that you want to add before you depart, Mr Steele? There is, convener. To some extent, it is to reiterate, and I will slightly expand on the point that I made earlier, that, to my mind, this is an exercise that has to put the people at its heart. We have to look at the impact on officers and staff and make sure that we properly understand them, rather than to assume that things are going to be worse, which is a natural position if you do not know what your alternative is. I think that it is incumbent on all people involved in this programme to make sure that the officers and staff are aware of exactly what an alternative could be. My colleagues and friends in the British National Police Foundation and I have had some discussions regarding the potentials as to what could be put before them, but I know instinctively because of my particular interest in policing terms and conditions across the UK. Police Scotland's terms and conditions are almost unrivalled, and I suspect that, if presented with a sensible options exercise that we could help to ameliorate many of the concerns that currently exist to deal with the concerns of British National Police Officers, but that can only be done by making sure that the people are at its heart, then the technical stuff will follow. Like I said, the legislative stuff has taken care of itself, and I believe that that will be welcomed by many of the officers in BTP to have some degree of certainty over what their future might be. Mr Goodland, before Mr Steele leaves. Just before he does, and given Mr Steele the opportunity to respond, there is a slight difference with the British Transport Police Pension scheme in that the officers, for example, who are on a 30-year scheme, when they reach 50 years of age and 30 years, they can continue their police and service and continue investing into the pensions. That doesn't devalue, if anything, it's a guaranteed increase. Alternatively, within the Home Office police forces, they have to retire at the 30-year level of 35, as it is, because there is a devaluation of, not devaluation, sorry, but it differs in what their take-home is if they continue working, where British Transport Police don't have that. They can extend their employment up to the age of 60 and on application for an extension beyond that, and that differs in the Home Office, my understanding of that. There is also the issue of British Transport Police officers are employees. We haven't resolved the issue yet who will represent the officers because they're not crown officers, they're not office holders as Police Scotland officers are. They have a contract of employment, they have a redundancy resettlement agreement, some have compulsory redundancy, and these type of issues have not been resolved and British Transport Police officers will not surrender that protection to transfer over as crown officers until they know there will be no detriment to them. Mr Steele is right, it is about the people and we need to engage with them and get their views, which we have obtained on many occasions, and there is no suggestion from anyone within the British Transport Police, indeed, division that they wish to transfer as crown officers and adopt the terms and conditions of those officers in Police Scotland because there are little bits within our own terms and conditions that differ and that potentially could create a detriment. Okay, thank you, nothing further to add. In that case, we move on to a question from Maurice Corry. Can I just come back to some point that's really bugging me at the moment, convene, and it's not the question I was going to hear. I just feel it all this and it follows on from Callum Steele's comments and I feel this quite strongly. Is it not a gross error that the BTP asks people assets seem to have been totally ignored throughout this whole process so far? Can I ask the chief constable to comment first? I think Callum, Nigel and Tom and I have all been very clear that the people are the most important thing in this. The people are what will make this work. The people are the ones with the skills and I've been immensely proud of my officers and staff who through a number of years now of uncertainty have shown their resilience and commitment to delivering great service to the public. I think that we should all acknowledge how fantastic they've been. I think that it is a matter of great regret that they've not been engaged to the level that they should have been. I made this point at one of the joint programme boards and I think that everybody accepts that. In the re-planning, there is a commitment, which I am keen to see turn into action, that there will be far more engagement with the individuals. I think that I have been listening to all the questions, Mr McPherson's question about pensions. We are all at one that we want to be sure that the people who transfer are treated fairly and that they have a proper pension when they come. We are absolutely committed to a proper discussion around pensions. As we've heard here, it is incredibly complex. It's not as simple as anybody thought when they first embarked on this. My plea in all of this is that an appropriate amount of time is given to re-planning and an appropriate amount of time is given to implementation so that all these things can be worked through and that the people who transfer over are treated fairly and end up wanting to be committed railway police officers and staff in the new structures that they go forward. However, you are absolutely right. The engagement has not been strong enough so far. I find myself often at a disadvantage because people look to me to the answers and I haven't got the answers. The answers are rest with other people. I'm really keen that we start to sort out the details of all these complex issues and involve our staff in discussions around them. Can I ask the original question that I wanted to ask? That was a burning issue. I had to get off my chest and I'm very grateful for what you said. Nigel Goodman, would you like to comment on that first question? I totally echo what the chief constable has said. I think we've all got to take responsibility regarding the engagement side. I feel as much as the pressure as the chief constable that people look for the staff association to provide them with the answers. It was. The pause and the acknowledgement that engagement has been poor was welcomed by the Federation but, unfortunately, since the 20th of February, we were told that engagement would improve. The first step was to have a day of engagement and that was going to take part in March of this year. We're still waiting for a date, for a day of engagement. I have myself written to the Minister of the Transport and Islands seeking clarity to the point that last letter he's suggested that it's gone off to the various departments to obtain answers to my questions. I attended the Scottish Police Authorities meeting only a couple of weeks ago and we posed a number of questions, which were declined. We were given no answers to the questions. On the evidence that we're seeing so far, yes, there's an acknowledgement that the engagement has been poor, but there has been no action to address that. It's simply words at the moment and our officers are still suffering a level of uncertainty. That is absolutely appalling that the Scottish Government keeps constantly reminding us that one of their three aims for full integration was about accountability to people of Scotland. British Transport Police officers and staff in the division are people of Scotland. They're proud Scots. They're proud of being British Transport Police and they're proud of living in Scotland, but they've lived two years of uncertainty. The term that they've used to me is they feel abandoned by not only their force but by their government. That, for me, is pretty disgusting. It's alarming that they feel in that way really. Who's leading on the engagement? The joint programme board should be leading on the engagement. We're still waiting for dates. One day event won't resolve the level of distrust that is amongst the officers at the moment. It needs to be much more than that. I'm open that both British Transport Police Authority and the Scottish Police Authority, with the joint chairs of the joint programme board, are some way towards mapping out at least six months of engagement with the officers to identify and answer some of their concerns. There's talk about, for example, their transfer as-is, but if they want to progress within their careers within Police Scotland, if they want to seek promotion, then they lose the as-is. They will then transfer to Police Scotland as office holders, so they lose their terms and conditions. That is handcuff in our officers. That's a detriment because none of them will then seek any career progression or promotion outside of the railway division if the threat is that they're going to lose their terms and conditions and potentially their pensions, but they're not losing their pensions, but they'll be a detriment to the pension. Can I just follow on this? Can I give Mr McMahon a chance? What's your response to what these two gentlemen have said? I mean, how are you going to deliver a positive message to encourage? You're a sales manager, so we say. You're out flogging your products. How are you going to sell them because you hear what the market is saying? I perhaps wouldn't put it in the terms that Mr Goodband has, but we acknowledge, as members of the Joint Programme Board, that engagement has been very poor. That's absolutely accepted. It's part of the rationale for a re-plan that we get engagement right, but we work through that Joint Programme Board. You're about to speak to the SROs of that Joint Programme Board, and ultimately Police Scotland has gone out. We've engaged with D-Division staff. I know that ACC Higgins took part in a number of events pre-Christmas to try to provide some level of reassurance, but again, part of the problem has been the absence of detail. I think that the arrival of a new SRO in the Scottish Government, Donna has made very clear that she's going to invest in comms and engagement capability to supplement what's already there. I think that that's a really positive step, but I absolutely recognise the points that Nigel makes that it needs to happen. I'm just very slightly concerned by one of the comments that you made there, that the implication being that, in order to engage with the SPA, you felt that you had to submit public questions to the SPA board. Could you maybe just clarify that? I mean, what engagement have you had with the SPA board and Susan Deacon, both up until now? How would you characterise that engagement? I've had none whatsoever. I've personally visited the SPA open meetings and we, at the last meeting, felt the need in the absence of any other information. We welcomed the pause and then we were informed that the draft orders were in draft form. There were 104 and the 90 orders, but they haven't been shared with us. Very similar to the pension's proposal when that was initially given to the trustees. It took 50 days of me knocking on the door of the Department of Transport who kindly then shared that because they were alarmed that it hadn't been shared with us right from the outset. We felt, in the absence of any answers to some of the questions, there were four particular questions that we would like the SPA to answer and it was around the pension's liabilities, the proposal. The decision, 24 hours prior to that meeting, was that those questions would not be answered. That, for us, was not a demonstration of trying to improve engagement with our members, which was very disappointing. Just to be fair to the SPA, had you formally asked for meetings or formally put those questions in correspondence prior to tabling those public questions, was that the first time you were asking those questions or had you asked them previously? It was the first time that we posed those questions. Just to be clear, my understanding is that I'm not going to comment on the level of engagement that you have had, but my understanding is that the Transport Minister informed the Federation several times, almost right from the start of the process, that there would be no detriment to your member's pay and that their pay in pensions would be a triple lock guarantee in pensions. Is that not the case? That is the case. We have had in written form the triple lock guarantee, but that is simply a statement without substance. There is no detail within the letter that shows what exactly those guarantees are. When you see language in a letter that says that it's the Scottish Government's intentions, it's their aim, it's their view, that's not in writing, a guarantee, and that's ultimately what the officers want to see. They want that reassurance. There is actually a triple lock guarantee, but the language in the pensions proposal itself, as I described to Mr McPherson, the intentions are that the members shouldn't suffer a higher contribution in the pensions, but again there's no guarantee, it's just simply an intention and that is not the language that our officers are seeking for that reassurance to fit the triple lock guarantee that's being proposed. OK, George. Mr Goodman, just to go over again what my colleague Daniel Johnson has, when you asked the SPA for the information, that was the first communication that you made yourself was straight to the board and in the way you did. Yes, it was the first time that we, through the process of the authority having public open meetings, we… Would there not have been a better way to actually try and do this, because we keep talking about how everybody needs to talk to one another and need to get things forward? Would there not have been a better way for you to do it rather than to, with a great respect, showboat at a meeting? Well, personally I didn't see it as showboating at a meeting. It was a point of, from day one and we've been sitting with a level of uncertainty and I think that Mr McMahon has confirmed that what has been a struggle with the engagement from the outset is the detail, because everybody knows there has never been a business case, there has never been a written down plan. I get that, but would there not have been better lines of communication than to do it about that process? Potentially, yes, but prior to that date it was not my view that the SPA were the ones that potentially could answer the questions because they themselves wouldn't have had the detail. It was only at that point when we welcomed the pause, we thought there was an acceptance by the joint programme board that there were risk and that there were concerns around engagement that we considered. Well, this was an opportunity for some of those questions to be answered. Just for my own clarification, just stop me from being slow here, but so you asked the SPA a question that you didn't think they'd answer for? No, previously I didn't think so. Previously, right, okay. Firstly, I understand the position that Mr Goodman is trying to get to answers, entirely reasonable answers for his members and he'll be aware that even supporters of integration such as myself repeatedly ask questions in this very room seeking assurances, and I'm disappointed that we're not further on with that. Convener, I would like to ask—there's been a lot of discussion about costs on two specific issues, and that is the role of the railway operating companies. Has there been discussions with them about the allocation of costs—Mr Goodman, perhaps, or Mr Crowther—and particularly regarding the aspect of training, please? Yes, I'm happy to answer that, Mr Finnie. I've convened a number of meetings now with the railway development group. I think that we've now had three engagements. I have a fortnightly call with Mark Newton, their convener, and the purpose of those updates really that started around about, I think, October, November was to give them an idea of progress, to move discussions on as well as to overall funding. We're working on the basis of a transfer of assets and so forth to the value of 21 million, I think, is what's been identified as the current cost of de-division. We're not working on the basis that the train operating companies have a new cost to meet around this, and I sought to give them reassurance as to our process. In fact, that was then overtaken by the decision that we should delay and move towards a re-plan. A significant part of that re-plan activity will be that the development of railway policing agreements has set out in the act, which we're determined to do, but having come to this landscape around about August of last year, it was clear to me that the work around due diligence, for example, to enable us to have a clear split of assets to fully understand the cost model that BTP uses at the moment, to either replicate or to develop our own cost model and then engage with the train operating companies that had not started quickly enough and we effectively did not have time to have a sufficiently strong engagement with the rail operating companies themselves. We're recovering that ground and the due diligence work is progressing, it's under way, it will report in the next few months, and that will give us a stronger foundation on which to engage with the train operating companies. Mr Crowther, did you have any points at all? Yes, I guess without seeking to speak on behalf of the rail industry, I think from my conversations with them, their concerns fit into two key areas. One is the cost of integration. I think that if they were here, they would question why. You know that the funding model is that our funds are raised from the train operators, so I'm sure that they would say that they're not quite sure why they are paying the cost of integration that it's costing BTP for that. That's one point that they would make. Sorry to interrupt you there, Mr Crowther. Has it been confirmed to them that they will be expected to meet the costs? Yes. The funding model is a user pays, and it's been assessed by the Department for Transport that this is a cost of policing, and therefore it's passed on to within our core budget. That's a debate that we often have with them. The second area is around how charges will be allocated in the future, and Tom's touched on that. So we have a very complex charging model that has lots of proxies that feed into it, and to say it causes some anxiety every year when the charges are allocated out to different people would probably be an understatement as people look at why their charges have changed. So it is a bone of contention even with us. So what people are very concerned to see is how will charges be allocated in the new policing model? Relatively straightforward for ScotRail, the operator that operates exclusively within Scotland, but pretty much more complicated for those who have cross-border services, so Virgin East Coast, Virgin West Coast, Cross Country and some of the other operators. So they're very keen to understand how will the charges for the railway division in Police Scotland be allocated out, and how does that fit with our already very complex charging model? As Tom said, there either needs to be a model adopted by Police Scotland that is similar to ours, or one that is completely separate that needs to be sorted through. That takes a lot of negotiation. If it affects our charging model, we are contractually obliged to give certain periods of notice. If it changes the charging model, we have to give three years notice around those issues. Then it plays back into day-to-day things like ICT systems, because our charging is derived from activities. So our command and control system pinpoints where a crime happens on a particular station to a particular operator, and policing activity is attributed to a particular operator. You can see that it's quite a complex model. Police Scotland needs a command and control system that can work that all out for them. Hence you can see why this is a pretty complex issue. Can I ask about the duration of existing contracts then? Is that likely to influence an integration date, or is that a uniform across the train operating companies or are they different? The police service agreements are an on-going contract. It's a condition of franchises. Someone who holds a franchise agreement must have a police service agreement, and they roll on. The bit where there is a time factor to it is in terms of our day-to-day contracts, so far as estates, facilities management, ICT contracts, et cetera. We need to give 12-month notice around those contracts to our providers. Hence why Tom mentioned that we were at a critical time just before the pause, because by now we would have had to have given notice of those contracts ceasing and nobating over to Police Scotland if the April 2019 date were to have been met. There is a time criticality around the sequencing of when notice must be given. Mr McMahon, are you able to say if Police Scotland is undertaking a cost-benefits analysis of integration now? No, we haven't. We are monitoring costs and have given you some sense of those. I know that the joint programme board has overseen that there is work to be done around benefits analysis and a description of those. I would expect, as we start to work within the more formalised and multi-agency PMO, that there will be a continued focus on emerging costs, but we haven't undertaken a cost-benefit analysis in terms of informing options appraisal, as it normally would. Who would do that? Would it be the board, the PMO, or would it be Police Scotland? Or would there be a global one informed by various component partners? I think that that would be a task that your next panel could probably speak to in terms of how they might pursue that. Prior to the MTT being stood down, on 29 March, Police Scotland undertook to conduct a cost-benefit analysis at the request of the SPA. Is that still going to go ahead? If so, when will it report? What I understand is that we are now working through the PMO in terms of conversations with the SRO and Donna Bell. We can capture costs, and we should. There should be work done to assess benefits, but the direction of travel is towards full integration. A cost-benefit analysis, if you like, would normally inform an options appraisal. We are not undertaking an options appraisal. We are not looking at other options, and that was the decision of the joint programme board. I understand that, but on 23 March, I am correct in saying that Police Scotland undertook to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, so will that happen, as far as you are aware? It is important to clarify for the benefit of the committee what we will commit to undertake, which is to capture costs as they relate to full integration and contribute to their articulation of benefits. I want to go back to some of the ICT issues that have been highlighted in today's session. Dr Kath Murray's submission points to problematic Police Scotland ICT architecture, and in the BTP submission, Paul Crowther, you talk of the risk around ICT systems. In your submission, you talk about railway partners assisting BTP with tasks, for example, stopping trains via a seamless GB-wide command and control system that operates throughout railway infrastructure. Research published today shows that 35 per cent of ICT services outages have been caused by a cyberattact covering 312 critical infrastructure organisations in the UK, including police forces. Surely, then, Paul Crowther, you would accept that the current ICT setup is not faultless and, conversely, does not integration offer an opportunity to iron out some of the ICT problems that currently exist? I could answer that quite shortly, I think, in terms of, you know, no. In terms of our protection against cyberattack, you would imagine that we have got the same sort of measures in place that any police force has. In terms of the railway infrastructure, it's part of the critical national infrastructure, and issues relating to sort of vulnerability to cyberattack would be undertaken by the Centre for Protection of National Infrastructure, CPNI, and they are very active with government and others to ensure that that is secure. So, I'm certainly not aware of any risk that integrating into Police Scotland would mitigate. I'm not sure if I've misread the question. I suppose that the question really is, are there current problems that you are aware of within the current setup that you accept perhaps exist in terms of ICT? It's absolutely a perfect system. Well, I think that what I'd say is, from an operational perspective, we have control rooms that are linked into all of the railway operating control rooms across the country. So, if we need to communicate with the industry, which we do probably hundreds of times a day about incidents, we've got seamless arrangements in place to do that, the length and breadth of the country. Police Scotland doesn't have any of that. It would need to create that, and it would need to ensure that it was doing that, in my view, from a single controller. I said earlier that this is a national function, and it needs to be commanded in a national function. My understanding at the moment is that Police Scotland has a number of control rooms. It would have to designate one of those, in my view, that was the lead control room for railway policing, and therefore it would need to operate on a pan Police Scotland basis rather than a geographic basis, as I understand it currently does. So, I think that our system is pretty good, it works, it's tested every day, and what we're trying to do is replicate a system that would work as effectively in safety critical decisions in the Police Scotland environment. I'll give you an example. Every time there is a fatality, one of the first things that my control room does is to engage and get patched through on the radio to the driver of the train who gives an account of what happened. That enables us to make an immediate risk assessment around whether it's a suspicious or a non-suspicious act. It enables us to make decisions around how we then react, and how we then react determines whether there are impacts down the line with blockages, which can then lead to safety issues as people are stuck on trains. When people get unstuck on trains, they have a tendency to open the door and get out onto the track. So, we have a system in place that does that. My point is, we must ensure that when we integrate, Police Scotland have a similar system in place, and it therefore needs an integrated IT system, which will enable it to do that. Those are the risks that I think we've got. Providing, we take the time, and providing, we make sure that all the issues are in place and the integrations are in place, those can be overcome, but they can't be rushed in my view. Can I raise a quick point? Our view on the full integration proposal is that Police Scotland wants one seamless command and control. That, in itself, on the railway infrastructure will create a dual command and control, because it will have command and control from British Transport Police in England and Wales, but it will have a separate command and control within Scotland. In essence, it is not achieving a seamless one command and control throughout the country. It will be purely for Scotland only. That is the view of the federation. It was just a quick question, which probably harks back to the point that George Adam raised earlier and maybe touched on something that Rona Mackay had raised as well. I suppose that it's just about, I think that George had talked about the contact with the SPA, and it was really just about the, had these concerns been raised directly with the Government as well, and just to really be interested to know what the relationship has been like and engagement like with the Scottish Government on some of the issues that have been identified. Or just generally to... All right. The engagement started off pretty well, if I'm honest, with the Justice Secretary meeting myself and members of TSA. Unfortunately, once the bill passed through Parliament, it kind of came to a halt, and every time we posed any questions, we got the three statements of the aims of the Scottish Government, which was the seamless command and control, the accountability to the people of Scotland, and the access to the wider access to specialism within Police Scotland. And we've posed questions such as, well, what is that specialism? What is the specialism of Police Scotland that's going to be offered to the railway division that BTP currently don't have? I mean, I know we don't have air support, but other than that, BTP have been functioning on the railways for over 100 years, and we have specialism within the force. So when we ask, well, what is it that... What is this enhancement that keeps being talked about, this access to specialism? And it seems that we don't get a response. So since the bill has passed, I would say that engagement with the Scottish Government has lapsed. Perhaps at the point that Mr Adam made regarding how I pose those questions to the SPA is a correct interpretation, and perhaps we should have given consideration to be engaging with the SPA in another format or in another way. I'll take that criticism on board, but at that time, in the absence of anybody else giving us any answers to the questions, we thought it was a correct or an ideal opportunity to pose questions to the SPA, but I take on board the view that it could have been done in an alternative method. Just to clarify then, how did you try to engage with the Government, but you felt that you weren't getting the responses back, but you weren't getting the same? I've shared the correspondence with the convener that we've given to particularly the Minister for Transport and the Islands, where we've posed various questions and we don't feel that the questions are being answered. Mr Ysaf has suggested that he has received a response from the trustees, for example, for the pensions stating that the pensions is a viable option. The trustees have not said that. We are not aware that the proposals are a viable option. We have concerns around the language within it. There is no covenants within the proposal, and the trustees have simply sent the proposal back, saying that it needs to be developed further before there is any consideration or whether there is an acceptance of the proposal. When we are asking, well, where is this information coming from? It seems that it's just not being answered, and 73 questions were put into the joint programme board through the civil servants. 73 questions that we collated from officers of the British Transport Police extended beyond that, but we focused on the main problems and concerns. Those 73 answers have, we've been told, been sent to the various departments to seek the answers. There's no timeframe. There's nothing to suggest when those answers are going to come back. We're now waiting three months since we've submitted those 73 questions. It's astonishing that, out of those 73 questions, there aren't some answers, but it seems currently there are no answers to the questions. That's alarming at this stage, particularly when two years ago we were raising concern around the timeframe and it was suggested by Police Scotland that two years was a luxury. Here we are two years on and we still haven't got answers to the questions. At the time that the comment was made about two years being a luxury to deliver this, there was probably an underestimate as to the complexity. The HMI report helped to expose that, but what I would say is that the commitment that we've made and to answer the point about Scottish Government engagement, as you would expect Police Scotland has regular and positive engagement with the Scottish Government, our commitment to the replan is very clear and we hear absolutely the concerns that Nigel and others have raised. We want to work within that framework to be led by the PMO and deliver the answers quickly. If you have good and co-operation with the Scottish Government, obviously it would concern you if you're hearing from Mr Good and Mr Rutherford that that doesn't exist. Absolutely. As partners at the joint programme board, we would absolutely reflect that position in our view as well. That concludes our questioning. It's been a very long but very worthwhile session. I thank all the witnesses for attending. We're now going to spend briefly and have a five-minute break. I welcome our second panel on BTP integration, Dan Murr, Deputy Director of Real Market Strategy, Department of Transport and Donna Bell, Deputy Director of Police Divisions with the Scottish Government. I thank you both for your written submissions again, as always, very helpful to the committee. Before we go to questions from members, can I pose the question that I posed to the previous panel? Given that full integration hasn't really started, in fact, it's been suspended, given the costs that have risen considerably and are still unquantified, and the risks that are developing and what's turning out to be quite a complex process, do you think that there's an opportunity to look at other options, including for the integration or for the delivery of railway policing in Scotland, including the commission service model? Thank you first of all to the committee for inviting us. It's a really good opportunity to, particularly at this stage, as the convener says, it's a significant stage in the project. It's a really good opportunity for us to just talk through where we think things are. Picking up the specific question, I see this as not so much a question for the joint programme board, but, as the Prime Minister made clear a couple of weeks ago, fundamentally, the responsibility has been devolved. The consideration of those options has also been devolved. Essentially, the question becomes a matter for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to consider. My understanding from the last joint programme board was that the Scottish Government had considered—I'm speaking a little bit for Donna here—but I'm very conscious that that had been considered and the view was taken at that stage, that full integration remained the right sort of way to go. The question was how we make that work. All I would add to that is that Mr Matheson has appeared before this committee and there has been a range of debate in the Parliament. His clear view is that integration is the best way forward, so that is not a decision for us as the SROs of the JPP. It was worth posing the question in any case. Just a wee follow-on from that, just to flag up, of course, that this bill was passed in Parliament for this, so that speaks for itself. Can I ask you maybe if you could expand on some views that we heard in the previous panel? There are a number of significant operational matters yet to be resolved and to confirm the organisational leads for operational integration. The evidence that Police Scotland and BTP presented to the joint programme board on 20 February did highlight that there were a range of operational issues that are still required to be resolved. We took that on board and were happy on that basis to consider a pause. I would be clear that work has not stopped on this. We have not suspended or paused. We continue to move forward as part of the re-planning process. As part of that, the workstreams are being reviewed, but we expect that they will remain very similar to those that were in place before. On that basis, we would not expect the workstreams to change in any great order. I think that that reflects the evidence that Tom McMahon gave to you, too. The issue for us is that we want to use the re-planning exercise in the right sort of way. Although we think that the basic structure of the programme looks like the right sort of basic structure of the programme, I think that Donna and I have been really clear that our commitment here is to whatever works. Something that builds the maximum degree of commitment, the maximum degree of practicality. If, in those conversations over the course of the next couple of weeks, a particular change is advocated, which makes sense, then clearly, as a joint programme board, we will consider that. The leads were very much decided to try to align leadership with the organisation that is best placed to deliver the particular task at hand. I do not think that the tasks have changed sufficiently that leadership is likely to change. Can I ask you if, at this stage, you could say when and how the re-fazing proposal would be agreed and whether it would include an actual integration date? The re-planning, re-fazing exercise is under way at the moment, and we expect that to come to some conclusions by the end of August. At that point, we will put forward views to ministers on a proposed date of integration at that point. Would you speculate that it might be next year, or the year after 2020? I think that there is one point to phrase in that, essentially, the date must effectively align to financial years just because of the way in which the industry operates. It is unlikely to be the 15th of October, but it would be the 1st of April at some point. I would just like to look at the role of the programme management office and the MTT. My understanding is that the MTT was instituted in the autumn of last year as a direct result of questions around governance from HMICS. However, the programme management office, in terms of the way that it has been described so far, is very much a functional programme management. How are those governance issues going to be addressed? Could you give a description of how the PMO will operate, both from a governance perspective and from an operational programme perspective? The programme management office is an administrative function that will provide advice and support to the joint programme board. The joint programme board will take responsibility for all the decisions that are made and will have a role in the accountability functions. The PMO, as Tom McMahon already described, will include members from each of the agencies who are involved, and that will help us to provide greater coherence to the work that we are doing. The way that the PMO will work means that it will provide information to the joint programme board to enable it to make decisions and provide better advice to ministers. It will cover next steps. It will assess risk and will consider issues so that we are, as JPB SROs, better informed going forward. That reflects the HMIC report that was published last year and refers directly to the work that Audit Scotland has done on the merging and joining of public bodies, which has highlighted clear leadership, clear objectives and a longer-term approach to planning. That will enable us to all work together in a collective fashion to pull that together. As Dan has said, the thing that we are most interested in is getting to a point where we understand very clearly what is going to work going forward. It has a functional role so that the JPB can provide accountability and governance. Is that correct? There is no accountability or decision-making function that is within the PMO. I understand that. That is helpful. You mentioned risk. Can I infer from that answer that the PMO is going to own the risk register going forward? The JPB will own the risk register. The JPB will be responsible for maintaining it. Can I return to the question in terms of costs and benefits? Ernst and Young are going to be substantially responsible for resourcing the PMO, as I understand it. It dawns on me that they are accountants. If Ernst and Young are in place, are they not well placed in order to provide an accurate cost-benefit analysis or business case, whatever we want to call it or describe it? The PMO will be led by a Scottish Government member of staff. Ernst and Young will continue to provide advice as and when. One of the things that we were very keen to do was to ensure that the agencies responsible for the implementation of integration were very much involved and in a leadership role of taking forward the programme. We have made a change to the way that the PMO will work. It will not be led by Ernst and Young. We have not, as Tom McMahon said, concluded their role going forward. We are very conscious that they are an expensive resource and we are very conscious that they have a great skill set that they can offer to us. We, as civil servants and public servants, have a great deal of skill to offer the integration process. Was Mr McMahon's answer correct that nobody has done or is going to conclude a cost-benefit analysis or business case? That is a bit of work that is not going to take place. Does the work that was done as part of the passage of the bill made the case for integration of BTP? There were a range of debates that took place at that time. The thing that we are charged with taking forward is the implementation of integration. As we go along, we will expect that any options that are brought forward as part of the work streams will be subject to cost-benefit analysis. For example, if there are options around ICT or workforce planning, we will expect them to be subject to cost-benefit analysis. Did you want to add anything? No, I think that that is entirely correct. I am very conscious that a number of decisions were made in 2014, 2015 and 2016, which were essentially about the principle of devolution. Those arguments were set out at that time. We are conscious of the individual implementation cost-benefit issues that we want to make sure that we have properly reflected those. We also think that we need to more accurately capture the benefits through a better benefits realisation process. We think that there is work to do in that sort of area, but we have not effectively revisited the fundamental question with the cost-benefits analysis. We see that fundamentally as a political decision that was made some time ago. A business case does not necessarily need to consider options or be about optionality. It can simply be about projecting costs against baseline and making sure that, as things are implemented, those costs are in line with projection. The understanding of what projected costs will be and baseline costs, as is the scenario, with BTP, are important. I want to establish whether that is a piece of work that will be undertaken or not. If it is not, I suggest that not having a clear view of what you expect the cost to be going forward would be a concern for me. Sorry, perhaps of the misunderstanding. I think that Tom McMahon referred to the point that he made about having a clear understanding of current costs and then a clear understanding of costs going forward. Police Scotland, along with us, has committed to making sure that we are aware of the costs going forward. When will that be concluded as a piece of work? Will that be concluded before the integration programme is re-initiated from its current policy status? As I have said, the work continues on the integration activity, because a lot of the activity that requires to be done is activity on mapping workforce activity, considering terms and conditions, so that does continue. As we go through the re-planning process, we will have a sounder understanding of the costs going forward and we would expect to have a stronger sense of what the on-going costs will be. I think that they may be subject to change, depending on a whole range of factors, so that will be a dynamic assessment that we will continue to consider. Sorry, what does a dynamic assessment mean? Well, costs may change. For example, we may have a different pay policy in the future. There may be different terms and conditions. We just need to think quite carefully about what those things are. Those are all variables within your control, and those are exactly the sorts of things that you need to lock down before you proceed. Therefore, once those things are locked down, the business case—certainly from those examples—shouldn't alter. There will be unknown factors that we will have to manage as we go along, but we would expect by the end of the re-planning process that we will have a sound understanding of costs. Those unknown factors would not expect to range so that you would at least have a best case. I would just suggest that you would want those projections and those cases in place before the integration green button was pressed. Is that not the case? I think that the decision for integration has already been made. If it is carried on regardless of the costs. What we are charged with is making sure that integration happens in the best way possible, so that the safety of the travelling public is assured, so that we have a service that is effective and meets the needs of all the people who are involved in it. Obviously, costs will be a clear issue for us and for ministers, and we will want to minimise those, and we will work very hard to do that. If I could perhaps return to the governance model, I think that it is probably kind to say that it is complex so far that it seems as clear as mud. Could I ask you to explain just exactly—we have the joint programme board, the mobilisation transition and transformation board and the programme management officer. Who are the accountable officers at each stage? I think that it does sound complex. One of the things that we have tried to do is to evolve the model over the last year or so to effectively reduce some of the complexity. The MTT was a really important initiative, which was really helpful in getting into some of the operational detail, but we now think that we need a different model, which essentially means that that is why we brought together the programme management office, which will involve all parties, and that will stand down the MTT. There is a clear implementation body, and the joint programme board sits above that as the decision-making body with clear accountabilities to ministers. However, to be absolutely clear about this, the accountability at the buck stops with myself and with Donna throughout the entirety of the programme. Clearly, we will have to make sure that our ministers are clear about where things are and that we will have to advise them appropriately, but the buck in the programme stops with us. Yes, there will be individual workstream leads who are responsible for individual items, but they are accountable to the joint programme board and are such accountable to us for effective delivery. Where does the Scottish Government fit in? The Scottish ministers are ultimately responsible for the integration and the enactment of the legislation. The Scottish Government is, because this is a joint programme, jointly responsible for the delivery of it. That is all-aspect. The delegated lead strategic responsibility for all aspects of real policing integration to Police Scotland lies with both of you. Yes, fundamentally, the joint programme board is the decision-making body. Fundamentally, the decisions are taken at the joint programme board. By the same degree, we are both civil servants. Ultimately, we advise our ministers on the issues that are coming to the joint programme board, and they have to take a view. Most particularly, as the committee has heard this morning, there are financial issues that have a cost. There are operational issues that have a cost. There are parliamentary and legislative issues that have a cost. Essentially, the joint programme board takes the decisions, but in doing so, obviously, we consult with ministers. We go to the joint programme board with the decisions of ministers with us. I would draw the distinction, convener, if I may, between where we are responsible for the implementation. We take ministerial decisions and ensure that they are implemented throughout the programme. Fundamentally, those decisions involve political choices, and ministers are fundamentally responsible for those political choices, strategic questions and choices through the programme. In the earlier session, you heard me ask Police Scotland about, I want to return to Daniel Johnson's cost-benefit analysis for me. You heard me ask Police Scotland whether they were going to do the cost-benefit analysis that they had undertaken to do at their previous meeting. I have two answers that are rather long, both of which I think are still down to no. What is your understanding of that? Do you expect a cost-benefit analysis from Police Scotland as they undertook to do? I think that I have already made some comment on that. As the programme goes forward, I will expect cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken on each of the options as they emerge. I expect that, as Mr Johnson clarified, we will have a sound understanding of the costs that will emerge as part of the programme so that we can compare those with any baseline costs that we may be able to discern. If the costs on any of those bite-sized pieces, if the costs outweigh the benefits, then will anything change? Who makes that decision? I suppose that the case that was made as part of the railway policing bill suggested that the benefits would be substantial. I suppose that it will be something that we will need to consider going forward as we are doing a huge amount of work on benefits at the moment. We will consider that as we go along. If the costs in one or more of those assessments outweigh the benefits, is it possible to change the end-game of the overall programme? If so, who would make that decision? As I have explained, we are implementing Government policy, which is the policy for full integration of the BTP into Police Scotland. Regardless of the costs, Mr Johnson's point was correct, regardless of whether the costs outweigh the benefits, nevertheless the end-game remains the same. The discussion that we are having at the moment is about the options within the programme. What independent assurance of the overall project will you be taking out with the joint programme board? We have planned for a gateway review. Later in the year, we plan to have a gateway just after the re-planning exercise has completed to ensure that the programme is in good shape. Who will undertake that? We have a centre of expertise within the Scottish Government who run gateway review programmes, and they will engage with external independent assessors who will come in and who will gateway review our programme. Switching the focus, if I may, just for a second. On 20 February this year, there was a special joint programme board meeting at which the commission service model was discussed, and I understand that it was rejected. Given the costs and risks that have been identified today, can you explain to me why it was rejected outright and why it would not be explored further? Why would it not be explored as perhaps a transition model? Might it be a better solution to think that instead of just one end-game, how do we get there using a more innovative model, perhaps? Just on that particular joint programme board, I was there in attendance for that particular board meeting. I think that it is important to emphasise that the joint programme board as a whole did not effectively say no to the commission model, because essentially that was not really within the gift of the joint programme board. I think that this comes back to fundamentally the political choice with respect to integration remains a political choice for Scottish ministers. In that project board, we raised the question, is there a change in direction, or is there a potential change in direction? It was made very clear that there was not such a change in direction, and I know that Mr Matheson made that subsequently very clear. It is important to emphasise that the joint programme board did not rule that out. Fundamentally, that question remains a question for the Scottish Government. However, the joint programme board will have to deliver. The joint programme board has no locus to say that it appears to be not the ideal solution, or that it will not necessarily deliver the solution. Is there another way to skin the cat? JPB has no locus to say that. The JPB provides advice to ministers. If we were in a position where we thought that any of the issues were insoluble, or any of the issues that we could not work through, we would provide that advice to ministers, but that is not a position that we are in at the present time. One final question for me. The committee has received various submissions about various aspects of the process. One is from Dr Murray, who states that analysis suggests that the current policy direction does not reflect best value, and best value is a defined term against an Audit Scotland description. On that, do you, as the JPB, have a view on whether full integration provides best value, as defined by Audit Scotland? The points that Cath Murray makes do not reflect the fact that we have a settled Government policy position on this, which is full integration. They seek to reopen considerations about other options. The approach that we have taken to best value as a programme board has been to consider Audit Scotland's work on best value, particularly around partnerships. We have sought to put in place clear leadership, which is a result of the governance changes that we have made with clear lines of accountability. We have sought to put in place arrangements around joint planning, which are incredibly important in a programme of this nature, complexity and size. Effective use of joint resources is another area that we have much work to do. The evidence from the panel that you received in the last session was a great illustration of that. Sound processes to monitor and report on the achievement of outcomes. The MTT is part of their work. We are beginning to think of the transformation work going forward. That is the activity that we have put in place to ensure that, as part of our programme delivery, we will have a best value approach to delivery. I will press a little further on the case for detailed evidence and analysis. I hope that this case was ruled out. Instead, there was a Bria Business Regulatory Impact Assessment. It is fair to say that that was wildly optimistic as to just how that would play out. Given that we now have all those increased costs and the uncertainty of the final cost, value for money, concerns and the risks in so many different aspects, would it seem reasonable that you suggested to ministers that there should be a full business case now carried out to provide that evidence-based analysis, as opposed to assertion, which is largely what we have had so far in the full integration programme? I would put it in two ways. First of all, within the context of the decision with respect to full integration, the political decision, I think that the role of the joint programme board is to properly raise issues with ministers in exactly the way that we did in February, where there was a material issue that we thought would impact on passenger safety in that particular instance. We raised it with ministers. As Donna said, if there are issues that come out of the process, cost escalations or areas like that, we would again expect to raise that with ministers. I would say that one of the things that we are trying to do through the improved joint programme arrangements is to effectively ensure that we have a tighter grip across the entirety of the programme. Our approach is effectively to manage the implementation in an effective manner as we possibly can and to raise broader issues to ministers, but we do not see that going as far as effectively establishing a full evidence, a full business case type scenario. Fundamentally, the decision remains one for ministers. If I could press you on that tighter grip, is that the same as having detailed evidence that can then be analysed? That is really what we need. Can I give the committee absolutely clear reassurance on that? Even where we are at the moment on that project, I would not say that there was absolutely detailed evidence on every individual aspect, but there has been extensive work under way on aspects of detail. We have heard a bit about pensions, information about terms and conditions, cross-border policing issues, and one impression that I really would not want the committee to take from the pause process is that we are progressing this project in any other way than based upon evidence and analysis coming to us. Now, there is a very specific evidential question that you have put to us, which is essentially we are managing essentially the cost implications, but I really do not want the committee to think that the JPB at each of its monthly or six-weekly meetings is not taking very detailed papers, details accounts, which look at financial costs, which look at operational impacts, which look at material issues in order that we can take informed decisions. I think that the particular evidential question that you raised, however, is not something that we would propose to look at as a JPB. That causes me some difficulty because the Scottish Government, which we have heard in evidence from the previous panel, led the engagement prior to the bill being passed, but we have now heard from the first panel that engagement has been practically non-existent. Now, if you are looking for the detail and the analysis and one side is not being fully engaged, it is not going to happen, is it? There is a problem. I would be happy to go on to the engagement question in particular because I absolutely agree with you that the basic model convener of this process was that the ones with the greatest level of specialism, the ones with the information to hand, should be leading the process. If you look at, for example, on questions of assets and liabilities, that does not suffer a lack of detail, there is a considerable amount of detailed information, which is coming through what has been extensive engagement. I think that there is a particular engagement question with respect to officers and staff, where I think that there is absolutely—and we say this in our letter quite squarely to the committee—that we think there is further work to do. I do think that there has been slightly more engagement than perhaps you have heard to date, and we could effectively go through quite a number of workshops, discussions, meetings, which effectively were an attempt to engage, as well as the question and answer that we published last year, which effectively went through a number of issues. I absolutely accept that there is more work to do in that staff and officer engagement area, but in terms of the actual engagement within the joint programme arrangements to date, the access to information, the involvement of the various parties, I think that that is good, but we think that we need to get it even better through the joint programme arrangements. Again, I do not want the committee to be left with the impression that essentially a vigorous and robust evidence-based discussion is not happening to date. There is detailed engagement, extensive engagement. We just recognise that we need to do even more. I address what the BTE-PF told us, that they had submitted over 70 questions to the Scottish Government and they remain unanswered, apart from just three main principles that they keep repeating the whole time. I am happy to pick up on that. I think that Dan is absolutely right. I was surprised to hear from Nigel Good-Bad that there had been no engagement for quite some time. Officials have met with the BTE-PF on 13, 14, 15 December, 9 January, 20, 21 February for full-day workshops to consider terms and conditions and other matters that are on-going. There are a number of questions that remain unanswered, and we are working to find the answers to them and find solutions. Dan is absolutely right in that we need to improve our engagement with staff, officers and stakeholders more broadly. I have put in place a communications and engagement lead within the programme team to take that work forward. I expect that we will have a programme of work on comms and engagement that will be presented to the GPB on 8 May. I expect that we will have a full schedule for the rest of the year by that point. We would expect those 73 questions to be answered as part of that process. One of the reasons, convener, is to be absolutely clear why the questions were not answered as effectively they came to us before the replanning exercise and the replanning exercise has a particular impact on those. What we wanted to do, and we thought that that was the best way and most effective way to engage, was to roll them into the replanning exercise, which I absolutely agree needs. I think that this is where Nigel had a particularly strong point where we need to be more visible on the replanning exercise than we are at the moment. That is exactly as Donna says, one of the issues that we will be taking at 8 May, the GPB, as to how we can make the replanning of this project as inclusive as we can possibly make it. One other thing that I would add is that we absolutely take on board Callum Steele's points about getting the human factors of this programme right. We have focused quite a lot on the technical matters and the legislative matters, but having a comms and engagement strategy that will put people at the heart of this will make a big difference to the way people feel about the programme and how it is taken forward. It is absolutely germane if you are going to progress in any sex as successful that people in the organisation come first and must be consulted first. It has been quite alarming this morning just how the human aspect had been left very much to the end of the process, not criticism of how it was set out in the legislation or as past. I just want to ask a brief supplementary about the gateway assessment that you mentioned about why you are going there. Can you just clarify when that assessment is likely to take place? Is that essentially going to serve as the conclusion of the replanning? Can you maybe outline what documentation will be submitted as part of that? I am assuming that that goes before the GPB, and will that include some of the cost analysis, cost projections, business case, whatever you want to call it? When will that be and what will it consist of? The gateway process is a fairly standard process in the Government and public sector. We expect that once we have completed the re-panning phase, we will undertake a gateway review at that stage to ensure that the programme is fit for purpose going forward. At that stage, we expect to have the full suite of documents that would go along with a programme that would include the programme plan document, the PPD, and associated with that would be things like the vision, the blueprint and the target operating model for the work going forward. I expect to have a full suite of programme documentation at that time. When will that take place? That will take place at the end of the re-planning exercise, which we expect to be at probably around the end of August. I just wanted to touch on the pensions issue that I raised with the previous panel. As far as I can recall, at stage 1 of the legislation, the SPA stated that there were two options that were possible for existing BTP officers from Scotland. Either stay in the British Transport Police Force Superannuation Fund or for the option that seems to have been now chosen, which was to maintain membership of that fund, but on a segregated basis transferring the BTP officers and staff in Scotland out of the main pot and into a segregated pot but a closed scheme. I just wanted to get some clarity on when and why those decisions were made as to what preference was chosen. Rewinding back, you are entirely right, Mr McPherson. There were a range of options that were available at an earlier stage in this process. This goes back to the human point, which we have heard a considerable amount of. The Joint Programme Board last year did think about a number of areas where it wanted to preserve continuity, precisely to provide the reassurances to officers and staff that we thought were important. I think that there is a point of characterising some of the work of the Joint Programme Board as legislative and technical when fundamentally it is about trying to give some degree of assurance on some of those questions to officers and staff. What we did in the summer of last year is we effectively made what I think is a really important decision that is essentially an as-is transfer decision. There are a range of options prior to that which essentially said we can transfer in a range of different ways, but what we tried to do over summer is to clarify that a number of aspects of terms and conditions would remain transferred across, ranging from pay, ranging from allowances, ranging from the dual status that British Transport Police officers currently enjoy. There are a range of things that came across. One of those was essentially in relation to pensions. What we have done over the course of the last several months is to engage with the trustees of the pension arrangements to effectively work out the most effective means for a transfer on an as-is basis, i.e. remaining members of the railway pension scheme would work. Following an actuarial advice, the segregated scheme was the most appropriate way to effectively execute that, but, in doing so, it is really important—again, one word that we keep on using in the process is as-is. We are ensuring, as part of this process, that pensioners or prospective pensioners have the same terms and conditions, which is exactly why Tom talked to you about things like, for example, the discussion with respect to indemnity. We thought that, as an actuarial and practical matter, the segregated scheme was not just the most appropriate, I think, from a legal perspective. I think that there are challenges with anything else, but, in doing so, we are trying to ensure continuity of terms and conditions. Have your discussions with the trustees of the scheme been constructive so far? They have been highly constructive. I think that Nigel is quite right to say that, effectively, we haven't decided points, but the level of engagement and the constructive and collaborative nature of that engagement from the trustees has been most helpful. On the terms and conditions, again, at the last panel, it was brought up while the intention is there and the aim is there. There is nothing in writing to say that that will be delivered at cast iron guarantee. Will that be forthcoming? Absolutely, convener. I would draw two points here. The first one is that we tried to provide some clarity on 8 December when we issued the Q&A to officers and staff. I accept that there is an element of conditionality, but we hoped that that was sufficiently clear that we were looking at continuity of terms and conditions. The real mechanism for that clarity is the legislation. Effectively, the legislation transfers officers and staff as they are. That is the particular mechanism that we are working through. To be absolutely clear with the committee, in that legislation, it is as plain as day that we are talking about. If that provides some assurance to Nigel and to others, it is absolutely the case that that legislation has been advanced entirely on that basis. There are lots of square brackets saying, add in here, that is the basis on which it works. The legislation is the critical tool. Ideally, we considered, convener, that we were in a position to complete the legislation in the early part of this year, so it could be introduced when the first of April 2019 timescale was in operation. We engaged in a short pause of that legislation in order to make sure that it fit with the re-planning exercise, but we would still like to complete the legislation as far as we possibly can by summer. I can give an absolute assurance to Nigel, to Tessa and to the other organisations that we will want to be showing them that legislation as quickly as we possibly can to provide them some of the reassurance that they want. Would you be prepared to put in writing that these terms and conditions will be guaranteed? On an as-is basis, I have no reservation about that, so my answer would be yes. I think that that would certainly supply some assurance to Liam Kerr. But, convener, I apologise, could I just make one point there? It will be a transfer, but inevitably, as with any arrangement over a period of time, terms and conditions can be negotiated, can be changed, but at the point of transfer, those terms and conditions will be maintained. I think that putting exactly what is an offer in writing and that commitment to do it will be very helpful and will move us on. Just to develop that point, Mr Goodman said earlier that the status of the British Transport Police currently, they have employment status. Police Scotland are Crown employees, they do not have employment status as such within law. So, and there won't actually be a transfer as such, I think that I'm right in saying, there will not be a choopy transfer because you're not becoming an employee, becoming a Crown officer. So, how can it be? You must, if you stop being an employee and become a Crown officer, you lose employment rights, don't you? So, they won't cease being an employee. So, this is a really important point. So, under the cosop arrangements, you're right that it's not a choopy transfer, it's a cosop transfer, but essentially they will enjoy dual status as constables and employees when they enter the service. So, they will become part of Police Scotland but are not part of Police Scotland, they will retain a... So, there are specific... What of new transfer is in because the Police Scotland we heard earlier will have to transfer people in to cover any gaps, I'm paraphrasing now, I appreciate, but they will have officer status and they'll be joining a unit that has employment status. So, you're entirely right, there are issues to work out here, not in relation to the transfer, to be absolutely clear, the dual status has been determined, but you're absolutely right, there are operational implications, there are actually quite a number of operational implications as to what that means and that's exactly why one of the most important strands of the work that we want to do as part of the re-planning exercise is this operational aspect. There are quite simply tens of complex operational questions that we need to resolve over the course of the next two years. Yes, but it makes it rather difficult, Mr Murph, for you to say guaranteed we will preserve terms and conditions when quite clearly under employment law, I don't... I'm questioning whether you can give that commitment. So, I am saying, I hope as plainly as I can, that the United Kingdom Government, and this is a position that's agreed with the Scottish Government in the legislation in the section 90 order, which will be the relevant legal instrument we're executing as is transfer in relation to terms and conditions. I think, Mr Kerr, what you're quite reasonably raising is there are a number of operational implications and I think Mr Goodban could reasonably raise those as well and those are absolutely to be sure the issues that we will be working through, but I have no reservation in making the commitment I've just made. Thank you. If it's just to clarify a point that Mr Kerr raised again there and Mr Goodban said in error, repeated in error, that is, it's right to say that serving police officers as Police Scotland are not Crown servants, they're public servants, is a different status again. I just wonder in relation to a couple of points that I may convene, and that is, as things stand at the moment with Police Scotland, and this will be mirrored presumably in other forces, there are a range of terms and conditions that apply, not least, excuse me, in respect of pensions. I wonder, Mr Moore or Ms Bell, I'm a former police officer, I've served with people who've transferred from the British transport piece. There must be experience on an individual basis of what's happened in relation to particularly pensions, I think, in the will of being transferred in both directions. Is there anything that can be learnt from that? Could it be scaled up? I appreciate it, it's a very difficult thing. People used to take their pensions with them and then sometimes they didn't. Just a quick point on that. From the United Kingdom perspective, we have a very reasonable degree of experience in these questions. Within the Department for Transport there are a number of individuals who have been transferred from other organisations, like, for example, the Strait of Ukraine authority. The lawyers who are involved from our perspective in those questions are absolutely taking advantage of that previous experience and the broader Government experience of transfers. As you are very well aware, Mr Finnie, those transfers are not unusual in many respects. They are things that are not quite the bread and butter of Government, but there are considerable numbers each year, so we absolutely are making full advantage of those as a previous experience. You also raise a very sensible point, a very reasonable point, if I may say so, in relation to the fact that there are a range of existing terms and conditions that are effectively across both Police Scotland and, for that matter, the British Transport Police. That is exactly why we are on day 9 of a number of workshops that are very much intended to get to the bottom of all those terms and conditions so that we can absolutely execute the as-is transfer when we need to do so. However, this is again some of the complexity of this process, convener, that essentially there is a lot of detail, there is a lot more going on than perhaps I think may have been anticipated at the start of this process. Can I perhaps confirm who has responsibility for the risk register now that MTT has been disbanded? Now that Ernst and Young has been brought in to play, I think you said yourself in the spell that it was an expensive commodity, can you give an outline of some of the costs that have been accrued so far from their involvement and the projected costs from their involvement? Tom McMahon, I think, gave you a rundown of the costs that have already been incurred and we have yet to conclude Ernst and Young's on-going role in the programme. Could you just, for the record, state what they are? The costs that have been incurred already? Yes, I have it here. It is £400,000 for the programme change management. I recall that Tom also mentioned another cost. I am sorry, I do not have that written in front of me. He gave Mr Scott a full rundown of that and we can respond in writing if that is helpful. Is it the case that it is not really possible to predict the future cost given that there is an end date for full integration? For Ernst and Young or for the programme? For Ernst and Young. We will reach some conclusions about Ernst and Young's involvement and the programme going forward by the end of the re-planning process. To be clear, £400,000 has been paid to date. £400,000, I believe, is to engage Ernst and Young as part to April 2019, but I would need to check that that is a Police Scotland cost that has been incurred. Will there be additional costs over and above the engagement cost? We have not decided that yet. I would say, convener, that one of the things that we have tried to do—a, we are focused very much on getting this right. As a practical matter, I echo the comments of Mr Madison a couple of months ago when we paused and when we changed the date. That is not something that anybody wanted to be in a position to do, but what we have effectively said now is that we will really make sure that the re-planning exercise works in the right sort of way to build the level of commitment to get a particular date. That includes two levels of resource. It is the project support resource that Ernst and Young have genuinely and very helpfully provided to date. I think that there is a considerable amount, as Donna was mentioning earlier, of civil service and broader organisational support that we will be using. One of our lessons—we hold our hand up to this—is that we needed to devote a greater level of dedicated resources to this project than was the case in the early stage. That, unfortunately, imposes a cost, but it will be a cost that will be monitored by the joint programme board as we progress. I understand fully why they have been brought in, but given that a lot of the costs are going to be coming out of the reform budget, which is there to try to ensure that Police Scotland operates effectively, which is a huge challenge in itself, that is a very important question. I just want to clarify some of those points. We have got a £400,000 engagement cost for Ernst and Young, a £300,000 cost in terms of the financial due diligence. We heard from Mr McMahon that their initial assessment was that there was a £1 million opportunity cost for Police Scotland. A, would you recognise those figures that I have just listed? Secondly, what was the Scottish Government and UK Government's initial assessment on their opportunity cost and the cost of allocating people to the programme? What is your current assessment of what that cost would be? Those costs are costs that have been made available to the GPB in the past, so yes, they are recognisable. Certainly, the Scottish Government has put in place a team to take forward the integration programme, which includes the membership of the programme management office and to include people to work on the legislative aspects of that. I do not have a full on-going cost until the re-planning process has taken place, but we can record that as part of the documentation that will be made available at the point of the gateway review. From the United Kingdom perspective, we specifically allocate a small number of staff costs associated with this particular project, a relatively small number of two staff members who are responsible for it, and the British Transport Police, which is included in its medium term financial plan, particular costs that are associated with essentially planning the process. I hope that you will forgive me. I think that from recall it was £500,000 for 2017-18 and 2018-19, and I am happy to confirm that directly with the committee because I just have to review again the medium term financial plan. Those things were included, but we do not shrink away from this. There is an additional cost here, and we are absolutely, as a joint programme board, very concerned about the public money aspect. We are also very conscious that that impacts on the railway operators. That is one of the reasons why the UK Government has made it very clear to the British Transport Police Authority through specific grant conditions that we have imposed that we would expect that cost to be minimised to the greatest extent possible, but I do not think that we can shrink away from this. It is going to cost more. The re-planning exercise is the means by which we effectively establish what that looks like. The improved programme and project management arrangements that we have talked to the committee through today are the means by which we monitor that and ensure that it remains reasonable. On the basis of all that, we are looking at something like a million pounds of additional costs just from Ernst and Young, and the scheme of things that sounds like approximately a million pounds allocated from Police Scotland, something similar from combined civil service resource. In rough terms, we are looking at something that, at the very least, a 20 per cent cost increase could be as much as 50 per cent, and that is before you have looked at additional civil service costs in terms of increasing allocated resources. Is that a fair sort of summary? I would be lucky to be unduly precise, but I do not think that that is an unfair summary of the implications of the additional work that we feel that we need to do to get this right. I think that it is really important to count up to set that against effectively the costs of getting this wrong with respect to both the staff costs and the financial costs that could be associated with getting it wrong. We think that that is a reasonable investment, but to be sure, absolutely to be sure, we are looking to try to minimise that additional cost to the greatest extent possible. But neither of you are able to see how much more the programme is going to cost. Mr Johnson, to be absolutely again, it is not because we are effectively looking to not be frank with the committee, it is because we want to make sure that the replanning exercise works. Donner and I are very open in the next couple of months to the British Transport Police and others saying that in order to make this work, in order to hit a date that we are committed to, this is what we feel that we will need. Yes, we will interrogate that and we will scrutinise that, but that is the process. What we do not want to do is not to prejudge it, not for any sort of technical point, but we do not want to prejudge it because we want it to be an effective process. That is why we want it to also be a quick process. By the end of August, we have clarity and then we monitor against that clarity. I think that we will be in a position at that stage to be clearer with the committee about what we think the additional costs are. We do not know what implementation is going to cost and we do not even know what the programme to carry out the implementation is going to cost. That is the current situation, is it not? That is the replanning exercise and that will help us to better understand the costs. You have already had evidence from Tom McMahon that sets out the costs thus far, and certainly I can respond and write into the committee if that would be helpful and costs incurred by the Government thus far. Yes, that concludes our question. I look forward to the additional information that you have undertaken to provide. Given the Government's arrangement that has been reviewed, if you could submit the new arrangement with the kind of officers, that would be very helpful to the committee and it remains for me to thank you very much for your attendance. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on 8 May when the committee will commence its stage 1 scrutiny of the management of offenders bill and we now move into private session and I suspend briefly to allow witnesses to leave and the public gallery to clear.