 Welcome to the Justice Committee's 13th meeting of 2017. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Is the committee content to take item 3 in private? This is consideration of the committee's approach to stage 1 scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse Scotland bill. Are we all agreed? Agenda item 2, railway policing Scotland bill. This is our closing evidence on the railway policing Scotland bill. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is a spice paper. Welcome, Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf, Minister for Transport and the Islands, and their officials, Don McGilvery, Deputy Director of Police Division, Kevin Gibson, Solicitor Director of Legal Services, and also welcome Gordon MacLeod, rail standards and sustainable manager for Transport Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary want to make an opening statement? Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to address the committee today. Railway policing Scotland bill follows on from the transfer of legislative competence over railway policing to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2016. As members will be aware, the Scottish Government's input to the Smith commission sought devolution of railway policing to bring the staff and powers of the British Transport Police within the remit of the single police service for Scotland. The Smith commission's recommendation reached through cross-party agreement was indeed that the functions of BTP in Scotland should be a devolved matter. The bill, now before the committee, forms part of a wider programme of work to integrate the BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland. Members have heard about that programme in a number of previous sessions. You have heard that, through the joint programme board, we are working closely with the UK Government, the BTP authority, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police authority to make integration a success. You have heard about our regular and constructive discussions with the railway industry, which have a crucial role as both the funder and recipient of railway policing services. Let me underline some of the key benefits that the integration of BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland will deliver. It will make railway policing in Scotland accountable through the chief constable and the SPA to the people of Scotland. It will enhance railway policing in Scotland through direct access to the specialist resources of Police Scotland. It will provide an integrated approach to transport infrastructure policing in Scotland, bringing railway policing alongside policing of roads, seaports, airports and border policing. The committee has heard of other benefits of integration during previous sessions. ACC Higgins has identified a greater ability to deploy more resources to locations that currently do not receive them. Rail industry representatives have flagged up an opportunity for cross-fertilisation of best practice, an opportunity for improved efficiency and potential for improvements to the existing police service agreements. The committee's evidence sessions so far have also enabled concerns about integration to be aired and some of our key partners in delivering integration to speak about how those can be addressed. In response to concerns, there are railway policing specialism that would not be maintained. ACC Higgins has given a clear assurance of Police Scotland's intention to maintain a specialist railway policing function within the broader Police Scotland structure. In response to concerns that railway police officers would be diverted to duties outwith the railway, ACC Higgins gave a clear assurance that that would not occur, with the obvious exceptions of a crisis situation. In response to concerns about the terms and conditions of officers and staff transferring, members have heard that we have offered a triple lock guarantee that secures jobs, pay and pension conditions through the course of integration. On that front, I can tell the committee today that positive discussions are now under way with the BTP authority to establish the way in which we deliver our commitment of no detriment to pension provision for BTP officers and staff transferring into Police Scotland. Our starting point is that officers and staff retain access to their current pension scheme and officials are now working on the financial and legal issues that are associated with delivering that. I want to move on swiftly to questions. In conclusion, the committee let me emphasise that our on-going commitment to working in partnership with members of the joint programme board, with the rail industry and with officers and staff representatives to ensure that railway policing in Scotland has a strong future. You will be aware that the BTPSA stated that counter-terrorist-related matters, bomb hoaxes and bomb threats on major lines or targeted or train operators on a single transport network, are currently handled by one force BTP and that devolving railway policing and causing the introduction of dual controls at the border with different bomb threat categorisation arrangements will introduce an element of risk. At the time of heightened security alert, is the cabinet secretary or does the cabinet secretary consider that taking this risk can be justified? I think that when it comes to putting in place plans to deal with any type of security issue, it is important that all of our police services in Scotland and the UK are working in a collaborative fashion. Right at the present time, if there was a major incident that was a terrorist threat to our railway infrastructure, BTP in Scotland would receive considerable additional resource support from Police Scotland in order to deal with that, given the nature of the capabilities that Police Scotland has. For example, if it came to an issue around firearms capability, as it stands at the present moment, BTP in Scotland are dependent upon Police Scotland to provide that specialist resource for them as and when it would be required. I have no doubt that with the integration of railway policing into Police Scotland, the protocols and the arrangements that will be put in place to deal with anything around bomb hoaxes, which of course can occur with the railway system in any part of society that Police Scotland deals with, is that it would have the same type of arrangements in place to deal with them on our railways and to do that in a co-ordinated fashion, recognising the potential impact that a decision in Scotland can have into the wider network and how that would be communicated to those in other parts of the network in the UK that may be affected by it. I will just delve down a little bit further. The TSA also states that BTP currently uses UK-wide intelligence, crime recording and command and control systems that enable it to seamlessly follow real-time incidents and asserts that the system will not be available to Police Scotland, who will have to use comparatively inefficient information protocols. I know what the cabinet secretary is saying, but here is evidence to the effect that they will not, Police Scotland, just simply do not have sufficient information protocols to handle and avert the risk that I am asking you if you think is justified in taking. I am surprised at the question, because I assumed, convener, that you would be aware that Police Scotland has access to the UK-wide intelligence network at the present time. So, if there is, for example, off the back of what happened last week in Westminster, it is that Police Scotland is directly engaged in the network across the whole of the UK in assessing that threat and responding to it with its colleagues across the rest of the UK. It has direct links into that intelligence network at the present moment, and that will continue to be the case with the integration of railway policing into Police Scotland. What it will do is create a single command structure for how we respond to that particular issue. What it has at the present moment is that it has access to that structure of intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing, and Police Scotland has access to that structure as well. What will happen with integration is that there will not be two separate command structures in Scotland dealing with those matters. You will have a single command structure in Police Scotland that will take that information, that intelligence, and respond in an appropriate way in Scotland as to how they need to deal with that. That will include in all aspects of our infrastructure. It is not just in our railways, which are an important part. It is our roads, ports and airports, all of which have different threat and risk assessments carried out on them, and they will use intelligence to inform what approach they then take in order to respond to that particular threat here in Scotland. It will be done in a single command structure, and it will be done in a way that allows it to be reflective of the other aspects of our infrastructure in Scotland, given where the threats might be at that particular point, depending on the intelligence that it receives. Are you confident that they will be able to follow real-time incidents and have the same recording and command control system as they are in place at present? I am surprised that anybody would actually think that Police Scotland does not have access to that live information. They do. They have access to that live information right now, and that will continue to be the case. The idea that the idea that BTP has some sort of preferential access to intelligence in these matters over and above what access Police Scotland has to intelligence on terrorist issues is simply not true. I think that if I could interrupt the cabinet secretary, it is the seamless, it is the cross-border issue. It will continue if it starts in Scotland and the perpetrators then carry on into cross-border into England. That is what happens right now. If there was a need for specialist capability to support BTP in Scotland just now relating to an incident of that nature, it would be delivered by Police Scotland because they are the only force in Scotland that has that capability to meet that. They would supplement that resource to what we have at the present moment. What you have is two different command structures and taking that forward. When you integrate it, you have a single command structure for taking that forward. Right now, when it comes to assessing any of those matters, Police Scotland is operating at a UK level. You will have to look at the comments that the Prime Minister made yesterday about Police Scotland, which were exceptionally complementary about its capability and its ability to deal with those types of threats and the technical capacity that it has to deal with them as the second biggest force in the UK. It has the technical capacity, it has got the access routes into interting that information and using it appropriately. I would expect that to continue with the integration of Police Scotland. In fact, I think that it will be enhanced by having a single command structure that will remove any duplication or different lines of decision making in order to make sure that decisions are being made on the basis of looking right across the infrastructure situation that we have in Scotland and the infrastructure arrangements that we have in Scotland. I will let other people in, but I think that the point that was made about, for example, football, an incident with football starting in Scotland and it continues on to Birmingham. The jurisdiction is at the border, and then Police Scotland has no jurisdiction thereafter. Let me give you examples just now. This type of cross-border work already takes place. It takes place in ports, for example, between Scotland and Northern Ireland. It takes place in road policing as well, where we have protocols in place with forces in England and in partnership with Police Scotland. It takes place in our airports, where we share intelligence not just at a domestic level but at an international level as well. That type of integration and sharing of information and co-operation already takes place at a domestic level. It comes to things like, for example, travelling football fans. There are probably very good examples that Police Scotland could give you about the approach that it was taking for the recent England-Scotland game, which, although BTP was involved in that, Police Scotland was heavily involved in it through its football intelligence unit in working in co-ordination with the Metropolitan Police and with BTP and how that was managed. Resource was deployed in order to manage that from Police Scotland as well. BTP was part of it, but Police Scotland was involved in that with the passage of Scotland fans all the way down to London in working in partnership with their colleagues in the Met, including officers from Police Scotland being based down there to help to deal with that type of scenario. You have just made reference to it. Well, your evidence is now on record, cabinet secretary. It will be for others who are steeped in this to look at it and see if you actually have addressed their concerns. Mary, a supplementary. Thank you, convener. Just to follow on from the points that convener raised, counter-terrorism within the BTP is reserved and the control for that is held centrally. While I appreciate the comments that the cabinet secretary has made about having a single command structure when Police Scotland takes on the responsibility of British Transport Police, there is already a single command structure across the BTP in dealing with issues relating to terrorism. I would just like an assurance from the cabinet secretary that there will be no break in the flow of information, because if the transport police becomes part of Police Scotland, there will be two commands of operation because there will be the rest of the BTP and there will be Police Scotland. Let me just try and be clear here. Do you refer to an incident relating to something taking place on the railways, or are you talking about terrorist threat in general? I am talking about on the railways. Right now, if there was a significant terrorist threat on the railways in Scotland, the BTP would require the support of Police Scotland to be able to deal with that, because the BTP in Scotland does not have the specialist capacity to be able to deal with that in themselves. It would already have support from Police Scotland to deal with those things. What would happen in responding to that in Scotland is that it would have two command structures in trying to deal with it. If it was an incident in Scotland, you would be in a situation where it would be a single command structure that would deal with it. It would remove the need for decisions to be made. For example, in Birmingham, the command and control centre for the BTP would respond to that in Scotland, because the decision would be made here in Scotland by the chief constable or the senior officers who were dealing with that particular incident. You would remove an element of the present arrangement that you would have around two different command structures in dealing with something like that, where Police Scotland would be the single command that would be able to make that type of decision. You heard from ACC Higgins when he was giving evidence about how that can help to streamline the process. I am confident that, with the integration of railway policing into Police Scotland, there will be no doubt about the capacity of Police Scotland to deal with terrorist incidents if they occurred within our railway network. However, it will allow us to make sure that the approach that we take to infrastructure policing as a whole in Scotland is one that puts in a strong position to be able to look at all the threats that may potentially be there for a major infrastructure element. It will help, if anything, to reinforce the way in which we manage our infrastructure and how we protect our infrastructure. It is worth keeping in mind in the strategic defence and security review that was published by the UK Government in 2015. One of the elements that we are looking at is the creation of infrastructure policing. That is with a view to looking at how they can make sure that they are co-ordinating their responses to those types of threats in a much more effective way. Whether the UK Government chooses to go down that route or not is another matter for them, but it is one of the key areas that they said that they would want to look at addressing to make sure that there is more effective placing of our major infrastructure in the UK as a whole. One of the benefits that I believe comes from integrating BTP into Police Scotland is that we will be in a position where we can future proof that. Whatever route the UK Government chooses to go down, whether they do it on an informal protocol basis or whether they want to legislate for it is a matter for them, but up here we will be in a position where we will have already taken forward that element of work where we can make sure that we are managing our infrastructure and the security of our infrastructure in a co-ordinated fashion under a single command here in Scotland through Police Scotland. The concern was raised because in relation to terrorism that may go cross-border, there is one chain of command across BTP, there is a seamless flow of information and there was concern that there could be the potential for some kind of breakdown or not the same seamless flow of information across the country. In theory that would be an argument for having a single police force for the whole of the UK, not just in railways but in all aspects of policing because that is what happens at the present moment is that you have an exchange of information that takes place at a national level, at a UK level, intelligence is shared. Police Scotland are completely engaged in that process. The tragic events that unfolded last Wednesday was an example of where Police Scotland were engaged right at a UK level in looking at the matter, assessing the situation, discussing the issue with police forces in other parts of the UK in order to inform the response that we took here in Scotland. I am confident that the types of things that Police Scotland are dealing with just now are on a DND out-basis, whether it be on our roads, whether it be on whether it be to do with airports, whether to do with ports, whether to do with policing in general to tackle counter-terrorism matters. The sharing of that information is an on-going daily process, and Police Scotland are well engaged at a UK level, not just with the police forces across the UK but also with our security services in assessing those risks. However, it goes beyond that. That sharing of intelligence and that working on a joint basis works on a pan-U-EU basis through EuroPoll. We have embedded officers in order to share intelligence into working in a co-ordinated fashion, whether it be in international areas of crime, serious and organised crime, human trafficking that takes place. It goes even beyond that into inter-poll and working on a multinational basis across the world. The ability to share intelligence, to share information, to operate in a co-ordinated fashion takes place just now. That is not new. It already happens. Police Scotland is doing it on a daily basis, and I have absolutely no doubt that, with railway policing coming into Police Scotland, if that is the will of the Parliament, that will be reinforced because it will create that single-command structure and it will allow us to make decisions and allow the police to make decisions and to make assessments on how they respond to matters across our public infrastructure in Scotland, and to respond in a way that they see as being appropriate to the situation here in Scotland. John Fuld, Ben MacDonald and Boaton. Cabinet Secretary, the Scottish Government has stated that it recognises the importance of providing early clarity to the BTP officers and staff on their terms and conditions following integration should that go ahead. That said, I absolutely understand why the British Transport Police Federation would have concerns when they see phrases like we will aim to ensure. Can you provide some clarity, please, as to a few things, please, why TUPI is not applicable, why the status of the Cabinet office statement of practice at the moment, please, and how that will manifest itself in the triple lock assurance that you keep referring to, please? If I will alter that question on board, as I am doing largely, leading on this side of things for the Government, I think that from the offset, we have understood that BTP officers, when I went to meet with Chief Super McBride the concerns were around terms and conditions. Very, very early on in discussions, we were aware of that. The Cabinet Secretary and I thought that, early on, we would like to give assurances respectively to the Federation but also to the unions and others that when it comes to officers and staff that, in our minds, are triple lock guarantee in terms of their jobs, their terms and conditions and pensions would be absolutely the appropriate thing to do. That is the way that we are approaching any discussions that are taking place. The work that has been carried out through the joint programme board, which you have, of course, took evidence from Dan Muir earlier this month, and I thought that he explained it very well that it is so important that pensions are one of the key work streams that are being undertaken. In terms of why 2P does not apply, in our opinion, I think that we have set some of that out, but 2P only covers what is known as, quote, unquote, relevant transfers. If I can, perhaps just read from the definition of a relevant transfer, an administrative reorganisation of public administrative authorities or the transfer of administrative functions between public administrative authorities is not a relevant transfer, so the Scottish Government's view here is that this transfer is an administrative function between public authorities, so therefore the exclusion applies. What we are using, of course, is a Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfer for the public sector. Again, to quote directly from that if I may, it does say that, in circumstances where 2P does not apply in strict legal terms to certain types of transfers between different parts of the public sector, the principles of 2P should be followed where possible, using legislation to effect the transfer, and the staff involved should be treated no less favourably than had the regulations that 2P applied. I hope that that gives assurances that, even though 2P does not apply, what we are using in terms of COSOP will give reassurances in that regard. We are absolutely determined to ensure that there is no detriment, that triple lock guarantee is there for officers to give them reassurances that their terms and conditions remain as they are. I hope that the evidence from ACC Higgins reflected that, too. Just for the avoidance about the free travel provision for officers and families, that is part of what the triple lock would seal in? Yes. That will be determined through the work that we are doing with the joint programme board. Of course, we have to go through the detail of that, but that would be a detriment to their terms and conditions, if that was not the case. We are very much looking for the transfer to be as seamless but, as we have said, to be in the principle of no detriment. Ayebel Minister, to say the timetable for that, when there will be absolute clarity that those individual officers are families and, indeed, they are real staff? It is fair to say from a Government's perspective that we understand that the earlier we can give those assurances, the better, of course, for officers. However, those issues require going through a lot of detail. Pensions are probably the obvious one, so we have to allow the joint programme board, which, of course, has consultation and discussions with BTPF, BTPF and others on a regular basis. We have to give them the time and the space to work through that detail. However, notwithstanding that, we completely understand from a Government's perspective that the earlier we can give those assurances in detail, the better, of course. However, in absence of that, the fact that the Cabinet Secretary and I have put in public record on writing in black and white that that triple lock guarantee will protect terms and conditions for BTP officers once integration takes place, we hope that that gives some level of comfort and assurances. Just to quote BTP Chief Constable Crowther when he gave evidence here, he said that, I am encouraged by the Scottish Government's commitment to the triple lock around terms and conditions, pensions and so on. If that is giving him confidence, I hope that that will be able to be translated to BTP officers, too. Yet, sorry to flog it, but it is apparent that it does not provide comfort to the federated ranks at this stage. Can you indicate the priority that you are giving this, because it would seem to me that if the Government wanted to win hearts and minds, it would want to do it with the people who are directly delivering the service, and that is, by and large, the federated ranks of the British Transport Police Scotland? It is a huge priority for us, and that is why I say that when I look at the joint programme board, I look at the various work streams, the pension work stream is right at the top of what we are doing, and the workforce project is right at the top of what we are doing. Operational integration is there, so it is a huge priority for us in the Scottish Government. In fact, I would say that when it comes to integration safety, of course, it is our number one. I think that everybody around the table here would appreciate that. Terms and conditions are a priority alongside that as well, so we understand that there is some nervousness, but whatever I can do and whatever assurances we can continue to give, we will do that. However, there has to be an understanding that some of these issues are complex. Again, I will go back to pensions and do involve a lot of detail, and therefore it is appropriate that we give time to work through those issues. I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said so far, and I wonder in that context that he is talking about the positives of cross-border working, information sharing at the moment. I appreciate that the Scottish Government believes that there are some further benefits to going ahead with that, but would you agree that things are working well at the moment? Do you mean in terms of the devolving of railway policing? Do you think that things are working well at present within railway policing in Scotland? We are on the basis of the Smith commission that made a decision to devolve railway policing. Taking the Smith commission aside on a practical, day-to-day operational basis, do you think that British Transport Police are operating well in Scotland? I think that, by and large, British Transport Police provide a good service in Scotland and across the whole of the UK. However, the reality is that there was a cross-party decision made, and that was to devolve responsibility for railway policing to this Parliament. Given that, it has now been given legislative force, and it falls within the competence of this Parliament, we need to put in place a structure that ensures that it is accountable to the people of Scotland. That is exactly what we have done in taking forward this bill. I respect the fact that some people differ from the approach that we are taking on doing that. I have not heard the detailed viable alternative to how that could be achieved, but the reality is that it is a reflection of where we are of the back of the decision that was made by the Smith commission. I understand that, but I do not agree that there is an imperative to do that straight away. If things are working well, then the process to me seems very rushed. I would like to ask whether you can give any practical examples of where the current model has failed. In terms of it being very rushed, we set out our position in this back in 2011. We subsequently set that out in 2013 again, prior to moving to a single force. We then set out in our submission to the Smith commission back in 2014. October 2014 sent out the rationale for its integration as well. It is not something that has been rushed. I think that you also heard from the evidence from ACC Higgins in the timeframe that is involved in looking at integration. It was a term that uses its luxury, given that the two-year timetable has been set out compared to the challenges that we have faced with the integration to a single police force. I am confident that there will be sufficient time to take it forward. I certainly do not view it as being rushed, given that it is an issue that we have set out over an extended period of time. That is what we believe will create greater efficiency and cohearns to how policing is delivered in Scotland. I notice that you have sidestepped my principal question. As we can see, are there any practical examples of where the current policing model for our railways has failed in Scotland? The principal issue would probably be around accountability in the way in which railway policing is accountable in Scotland at the present time. Some of you might have recalled that, a number of years ago, there were concerns about the approach to stopping search that British Transport Police had. A very disproportionate number of people from BME communities who were being stopped in search. At that time, my predecessor raised concerns about it. However, it was an issue that was out with the scope of the Scottish Parliament to deal with, because it was not accountable to Scotland. It was a UK force that was through the British Transport Police Authority and through that into the Ministry of Transport and the Transport Minister in England and Wales. You will also be aware that one of the issues that we have at the present time is that, in many cases, beyond the central belt or our major conurbations, responding to matters on our railways that require a policing response is largely being delivered by Police Scotland at the present time, particularly in our rural areas, because of the length of time that it takes for BTP to be able to respond to that. For example, I have four train stations in my constituency, none of which have a permanent BTP presence. If there is an issue that actually happens within those train stations, it is a local police service that responds to those issues. If there is a specialist resource required for it, it will have to wait for BTP to arrive. One of the benefits that will come from integration is that ACC Higgins has highlighted that there will be a greater understanding of operating on our railways because there will be more training for Police Scotland officers on dealing with railway issues alongside having a very specialist division that will deal with the special assignments of it. What we have at the present moment is a service that is by and large a good service where it is received, but there are significant parts of the country where there is very little resilience within BTP to be able to respond to matters because Police Scotland would have to step in and fill that space. That is a reflection of where we are at the present time. I believe that what we will have with integration is an ACC Higgins that is highlighted as an approach that Police Scotland tends to take, is that we will have greater capacity within Police Scotland to be able to meet those needs across the network in Scotland alongside that, and also having that specialist capacity that is delivered by BTP at the present moment when incidents occur that require a specialist level of input. I think that there is an issue about the level of resilience within the existing system, and moving to a system that will have it within our national police service, will provide us with greater resilience and access to a wider range of specialist supports that we do not have at the present time with BTP in Scotland. It was a supplementary supposed to be to John Finnie's. It went on another subject. No, we have moved on to John Finnie's to pay. I know that Fulton wants to continue on that, and Ben Sapie for him to go slightly before him. There is an opportunity to come back in later. My question is in a similar to Oliver Mundell. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could tell me for how long it has been in the Scottish Government policy for the integration of BTP into Police Scotland. As I mentioned to Oliver Mundell, we first set out our view that this was an approach that should be taken when we were starting to look at the issue of moving to a single police force here in Scotland. That goes back to 2011. If I recall correctly, I think that John Finnie may have raised the issue at a parliamentary level previously if I am not wrong in that point. I can vaguely remember his interest in this particular issue back then. That was when we were starting to look at the issue of moving towards a single force here in Scotland to look at whether aspects of policing that is delivered in Scotland could be included in that wider single force. When we moved towards the single force in 2013, it made further representations to the UK Government on the issue of integrating it in Police Scotland, which was taken up by my predecessor. We then set it out in greater detail again in 2014 to the Smith commission. We said that we should be looking at integration of BTP into Police Scotland but also civil nuclear policing into Police Scotland, which is a major part of infrastructure policing, largely in armed response for the facilities that they cover. However, the Smith commission came to the view, although I am not saying that it should be one model or the other, but it agreed that it should be a devolved responsibility. As a result of that, that is why we are now taking forward the policy intention that we have set out over a number of years now through this particular piece of legislation to ensure that, if it is becoming a matter within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, we have a clear line of accountability on how the service will be delivered and who it will be accountable to. Ultimately, it is accountable to the Scottish people, and we believe that this is a model that best affects that type of integration and that type of accountability. In just following that brief, what sort of response did you get from other political parties to the Scottish Government's consultation on this and on the BTP integration? I am not aware that there were any formal responses from any of the other political parties on it, but if you look at our submission to the Smith commission, anybody considering our proposal that we should be devolving where we are policing to the Scottish Parliament would be in absolutely no doubt about what our view was on what should happen to it once it is devolved. I am not aware of any responses that were made by other parties to that, and it was a cross-party agreement that was reached on devolution of it. The name is supplementary on this line of questions. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I take your point around the Smith commission, and I also accept that it has been the long-standing position of the Scottish Government to fold British Transport Police into Police Scotland. However, it would be fair to say that, out of the Smith commission recommendation, there were perhaps three or four or two or three options that could have been taken forward to give effect to that. Is it good practice, you think, for the Government solely to consult on one option or at least to posit the notion that there are possible other options, albeit at the same time perhaps outlining what shortcomings you may see in those other options? Well, it is not unusual for Governments to take a policy decision in matters, and then to pursue that policy decision, and on the issue around the integration of BTP into Police Scotland that has been a policy position for the Government for a number of years. Do you think that it is good policy in terms of development and good legislations? You think, through the consultation process, that obviously we do not have a revising chamber that is a front-loaded process, that you are better served and the process is better served if the consultation appraises all of the options, albeit that, I take your point, the Scottish Government had made clear what its position was over some time, that it would frame the consultation in such a way to make absolutely clear what its preferred options were and what the benefits, as you see it, of that option might be. Let me come on to the other options. Before doing so, I think that it is important to recognise that Government will make policy decisions in matters and then pursue them. For example, the policy decision that we have made to look at reducing the number of children who are cross-examined in our courts and then consulting on how we then take that forward, how we make sure that it happens is a policy decision that we have made. It is not on whether it should happen or not, but it is about then taking that policy forward to the implementation of it. That is what we have done with the BTP. However, let us look at the options. There was an option around the model that we are taking forward just now, and it is one of the options that was put forward by the BTPA. There were three models that they had suggested prior to legislative competence being given to this Parliament for railway policing. There was a model that changed the name of the organisation, which would be Transport Police Scotland, which would be a cap name, a cap badge change. It would not deal with the issue of the fact that it is now a devolved matter and that we have to put a structure in place. It did not seem to me to be viable. The other option was to look at having some sort of statutory type of accountability to the Parliament or to the SPA, while at the same time having the line of accountability through the British Transport Police Authority and through the Ministry of Transport and the Minister for Transport, which, in my view, would have created greater confusion. At the same time, it would have been very difficult to understand how that would create a line of accountability that was sustainable, because BTP policing in Scotland is a very small element of BTP's work across the whole of the UK. It would be difficult to imagine how we would set a level of accountability at a Scottish level that would then result in decisions being made right across the rest of the UK. Also, if there were issues of dispute, how would it be resolved? My view was that that option would have created potentially greater confusion around accountability on those types of issues, which then brings you to the issue about the option that we are taking forward. That is that it should be integrated with a clear line of accountability, chief constable to the Scottish Police Authority, and of course to the Parliament and to the people of Scotland. You have greater transparency in how that will be taken forward. I suppose that there is a fourth option. The fourth option could be that you could have a stand-alone transport policing constabulary in Scotland, but keeping in mind that BTP in Scotland has just over 200 officers, it would not be sustainable. It would have the capacity to operate as a service with that level of personnel in it, and, in my view, it just would not have been a viable option. Having clear accountability, that single-command structure and having that specialist railway service delivery through Police Scotland and access to those wider specialist resources that Police Scotland has as and when it is necessary, and on a routine basis, in our view was the best option for pursuing because we could not see how the other options would actually be viable. You have discounted as being too confusing and leading to misunderstandings around accountability. I understand that there was being pursued by the Government in relation to energy regulations, so, clearly, it seemed to be satisfactory in some areas, but not in this area. Your point in relation to stop and search and your predecessor's concerns about accountability, about practice within the BTP, I think would be a little bit more convincing if the same predecessor, just as Secretary, had been accepting some level of responsibility for the levels of stop and search that were being undertaken within Police Scotland at that time, which he dismissed as an operational matter, to give credit to yourself. It was an issue that you recognised and took forward, but it is hardly a convincing argument for going down the route that we are being asked to go down in relation to this bill for folding BTP within Police Scotland. Can I just say that, first of all, in fairness to my predecessor, this was pre-Police Scotland, the issue with BTP and there was a particular element around it. Was it the numbers? In which case it makes what happened with Police Scotland even more? It was the volume, the nature of the balance between the number of people who came from BME communities who were being stopped. Did it happen to children below the age of 8? The principal issue here is that the very issue that you have highlighted in Police Scotland is a very good example of the benefits that come from accountability, pursued by one of your former colleagues in the Parliament. It was an issue that I recognised with concerns about. We put in place a process in order to take that forward involving Police Scotland. It has resulted in significant policy change in approach because of the scrutiny that has been applied by the Parliament, the process that the Government put in place to consider the issue and the policy process that we now have in place in order to deal with it. Actually, with BTP at present, you do not have that opportunity. The issue around stop and search has been raised by address concerns that I am not aware of any profiling being used in stop and search by BTP. I think that there is a reflection of the approach that we are taking at that time on a pan-UK basis, because we are a pan-UK body and we are operating in that principle. However, notwithstanding that, the difference is that, with the integration of BTP into Police Scotland, the accountability that we now have with Police Scotland in those types of issues is exactly the same type of accountability that we have with BTP. If we are policing in a way that we do not have at the present moment, I will let Hamza Cymru in the point that he wants to make. Just perhaps, to give you a little bit more personal reflection and understand the time, if I may, before I was even elected, Minister for Transport elected as an MSP to this Parliament, I was one of those young Asian males who stopped often after 9-11, the years after 9-11, whether that was at an airport or whether that was at a train station. For me, I did not know the differentiation at the age of 18, 19, 20 between Police Scotland and Transport Police, all I knew is that a copper was stopping me and I had no idea why. When it was done at airports, as a young activist in Glasgow, I was able to call the Justice Secretary and indeed others in Police Scotland at that time, Alan Burnett, who was in Police Scotland, who was leading on some of this counter-terror. My point that I wanted to make was that I was able to get Police Scotland to come in to engage in the mosque and with the community. When it happened to me under section 44 at the railway station, that same accountability just wasn't there. From a perspective of somebody who had to deal with that, when there was a mixed group of Asians and white people, as I was there and I was the only one who got pulled out for a stop and search, at a railway station, it didn't feel like there was that level of accountability in the same way that there was in Police Scotland. I won't go on about the issue, but the point is that just from a perspective of somebody who has had a number of stop and searchers over the past 10 years, there does seem to be a different level of accountability. That's just to put that under the record. You've outlined various options that you didn't see how they would work. The fact of the matter is that only one option was available, take it or leave it. Why weren't the other options at least put out to consultation? Because we as a Government have already come to a position and I view that the best model was for the integration of railway policing into Police Scotland and we'd set that out over an extended period of time. I think that people will regret that that is the case. It's been a case of taking this option that the Government has decided will work or leave it whereas our other options could have been looked at fully thrashed out to see if they were viable. We're now on to Ben followed by Stuart then Rona. I've got a long list of people, so if we could be reasonably brief. Thanks, convener. I wanted to get back on the issue of the retention of specialisms. You'll be aware that a lot of the concerns that we've received from British Transport Police have orientated around the maintenance of a transport policing ethos should the will of Parliament be for railway policing to be part of Police Scotland. In your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, you spoke about ACC Higgins' commitments to maintain a spoke transport unit within Police Scotland and his assurances that specialisms would be retained in a railway policing function. You also spoke about how abstraction wouldn't occur. I just wondered, from a Government perspective as well as from a Police Scotland perspective, if you could state clearly that there is a commitment from the Government to maintain a specialist railway policing function within Police Scotland and that maintenance of both the specialisms in the here and now but also in the medium to long term through training and skills. Through that specialist function, could you reiterate again that we've spoken about the accountability that could be enhanced by bringing railway policing within Police Scotland, but could you touch more on the operational benefits as you see them of this piece of legislation? We've been very clear from the outset about our intentions and the integration of BTP into Police Scotland as the specialist railway policing in Scotland is greatly valued in the way that it's delivered by BTP at the present moment and that we want that specialism to be maintained and to be retained within the railway policing that's taken forward by Police Scotland. You've heard in the evidence from ACC Higgins who is leading in this area for Police Scotland. I should say an officer with a considerable degree of expertise when I heard that he had started his policing career back in 1988. I was struck by the fact that I was still at school in 1988 but he set out very clearly about the intention to have that specialist division. You've had a letter from ACC Higgins that sets out again how they intend to enhance training for all police officers but also how that specialist cohort, which they will have for railway policing, will have that enhanced training in the way that they have for other specialisms. There is no doubt that within Police Scotland there are a variety of different cultures and ethoses within their various specialist divisions. The ethos and culture around policing in some of our more rural parts is different from the way in which policing is delivered in our urban parts. I've witnessed that first-hand myself and spoken to officers in those different areas. It's a very different approach but within the same organisation reflecting the circumstances, different ethos and different culture to it. That already takes place in general policing. The approach that we have within the ethos that takes place within a highly specialised area such as armed policing is very different from the ethos within community policing. The approach that we have is reflective of the specialism and the highly skilled nature of that. We have that in a variety of different parts in road policing, port policing and airport policing in those specialist areas. I would expect that ethos to be recognised and maintained and taken forward within the way in which railway policing is delivered. From the comments that you received from both the chief constable of BTEP and from ACC Higgins, there is a determination in their part to work together in order to preserve and protect that and maintain that in moving forward. As I mentioned in the issue of training, ACC Higgins has set out very clearly how they will be looking to change the training module for new officers coming into the force in order to extend the provision that they then get for railway policing. They have a greater skillset and understanding around railway policing in a way that isn't there within it. I believe that that will create more resilience and more capacity within Police Scotland to deal with those issues while having that highly specialised cohort of officers to deliver the type of service that BTEP provides at the present moment. In the issue of accountability, there is absolutely no doubt that policing in Scotland, since we have moved to a single force, is now more accountability than it has ever been. The scrutiny of policing is now greater than it has ever been. For many of those things, I think that it is a positive thing that that additional scrutiny and accountability is being delivered. BTEP, at the present moment, is a UK-wide force. It is a GB-wide force, based in Birmingham. The resource that it has in Scotland serves as well, but it is of a limited size. It is dependent on Police Scotland to supplement the services that it requires assistance with. I believe that, having it integrated, it will create greater accountability and it will give greater coherence to how policing has been delivered on a key part of our public infrastructure here in Scotland. Thank you, cabinet secretary. For clarity, the operational benefits of the integration, as you see it. You heard from ACC Hingans saying that he believes that it will give greater effectiveness and efficiency, and it will allow for the resource that Police Scotland has at the present moment that BTEP would make a request for, or that it would have a training exercise for, a joint event of some sort, which will now be used on a routine basis. There won't be any special requests. There won't need to be a request for a special operation to be set up. It will happen as a matter of routine. I also believe that the benefits of having a single command structure when it comes to decision making in these matters will help to speed up that process and it will give greater line of accountability as well. As I mentioned, given the model that Police Scotland is intending to take forward, I think that it will create greater resilience within the service because there will be more police officers who have an understanding of railway policing in a way that we don't have at the present moment, while continuing to have that important cohort of specialist railway police officers. Finally, one of the operational benefits that will come from it is being able to look at how we police our infrastructure in Scotland, our roads, our ports, our airports and our railway system to ensure that we are benefiting from the different approaches that they take and learning from one another, the cross-fertilisation that you heard from some of the rail service providers that could be beneficial, but equally learning from the skillsets that BTPs have and how that can be utilised in other parts of Police Scotland to improve their efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with issues. Without the transport, the minister would say particularly around road policing and be able to open up roads more quickly. There is a variety of things. There are operational benefits that will come from it, but I also think that there will be benefits that will come into Police Scotland as a result of it as well, from learning of the approach that BTPs take forward and how they handle some situations. In reference to the points that Oliver Mundell raised, does that piece of legislation have the direction to improve the service and enhance the service of policing on our railways? Nobody should be in any doubt. The intention behind it is to deliver as good if not a better service than we have at the present time on our railways and to make sure that that is a standard of service that puts safety as its top priority, because that is the number one priority in that. The other assurance that is provided there is the provision that is made for the railway policing agreements. That again sets out very clearly for the railway industry and railway users as to what is expected and what will be delivered by Police Scotland in delivering policing on our railways. It sets out a very clear set of detail as to what will be delivered and how it will be delivered in the way that the police service agreements deliver at the present moment. It gives that level of assurance around the specialism that is being delivered and exactly what will be delivered for the purposes of railway policing in Scotland. The long list of people is Stuart, Rona, Liam, Oliver, Mary, Douglas. I am not going to have supplementary, so if you have a supplementary incorporation to the main line of questioning, I would be grateful Cabinet Secretary and questioners if you could cover the points as succinctly as possible. Stuart, followed by Rona. The subject of railway policing agreements has just been raised and I want to develop some questions around that. When the railway operating companies appeared before the committee, I asked them if there are two tests for railway policing where for them, and what is essentially a commercial relationship they have, effectiveness and the cost of provision. They agreed that those were the two things that they would take most interest in. Given that ACC Higgins has inter alia told us that there is going to be increased training in particular everybody up to the rank of inspector who may be first responders so that they are better able to assist incidents on the railway, there are clearly going to be some additional costs that are related to the railways. Is that going to be something that is incorporated in the railway policing agreements, or is it as at present, as we were indicated by the railway companies, when Police Scotland or any territorial force attend a railway incident rather than the BTP, that that will be a cost that will simply be borne by Police Scotland, as all the extra capability that the additional training that Police Scotland officers are going to have will be? If I may take that one up. There are a couple of points to make. One, I was pleased that in the round table with rail operators, every single one of them said that the engagement with the Government had been constructive and positive. The point was that we wanted to ensure that engagement from the very very beginning was constructive. On the substantial point about RPAs, I was pleased that rail operators viewed it as an opportunity, an opportunity to improve the current PSAs, cross-fertilisation, going into a greater level of detail. Their view is an opportunity as opposed to a burden or a hindrance, so I was very pleased that they shared our view on that. ACC Higgins' letter, which provides more detail to the committee, makes the point that training is part of one of the work streams of the joint programme board. Upskilling of the 17,000 officers of Police Scotland is a positive thing. I think that everybody would agree with that. His view and ACC Higgins' view—and it would be, of course, an operational matter—is that, when there have been other changes in legislation, they have had to adapt their training. They were able to do that within existing budgets, within existing provision, and he would look to do that within existing provision. It should be said that there will also be efficiencies, we believe, made with the integration of BTP into Police Scotland. That might cover some of the additional costs associated with integration. ACC Higgins makes the point—he is right to say that—that, if there are additional costs that he cannot make provision for, he would revisit what he said out in the letter to committee, which I think is a sensible approach. There are clearly areas where Police Scotland and Police Transport Police are working together already. For example, I understand that BTP gave up their cells in 2013 and now used Police Scotland cells. I take it that sort of co-operation has not been something that is fed through to additional costs under the RPAs. Similar co-operation, where there is no marginal cost to Police Scotland in working, would not lead to additional costs for the rail operating companies, because there is no cost to Police Scotland to provide to support what I understand as an average of six arrests a day by BTP. Before I ask my question, it is worth putting on record if I can just pick up on the convener's earlier point about options. No other party put forward alternatives during the Scottish Government consultation, and it was an agreed cross-party issue in the Smith commission. I would like to ask you on your position on the deployment of tasers. Will the use of the taser change after integration into Police Scotland? The deployment of tasers for BTP officers is a matter for the youth constable of British Transport Police. The approach that is being applied at the present moment is based on the assessment on a pan-UK basis for the deployment of tasers at particular stations where they have made an assessment that they think that there is greater risk. On the integration of railway policing into Police Scotland, it will be a matter for the chief constable of Police Scotland to determine on the deployment of tasers or any other specialist asset of that nature, Firearms Officers. Again, it will be based on a threat risk assessment and to look at what is in a proportionate response to that. It will be a decision for the chief constable of Police Scotland to make. If the issue is Firearms Officers, I believe in Scotland that use them and not south of the border, how would that plan out? That is correct. In Scotland, officers who are deployed with tasers are qualified Firearms Officers. That is not the case in England and Wales. My understanding is that that is the same for BTP officers. They are officers who are trained in deploying tasers that are not Firearms Officers. The way in which the model is taken by Police Scotland is, again, an operational matter for the chief constable, which is that officers who are deployed with tasers are qualified Firearms Officers. It would be for the chief constable to determine whether, one, he felt that there was a need for tasers and, two, how that would be appropriately deployed. Thank you. Just on the point of the options, the Smith commission said that the British Transport Police would be devolved. It did not say that it was integrated. It would be integrated. That is one option and the only option that we have got on the table. That was the point. If we could move on to Liam Oliver, followed by Mary Douglas and Minnie. Of the training provision, what is expected to be the likely cost of the additional training provision for Police Scotland officers? It is part of the joint programme board between ourselves, the UK Government and the various stakeholders. Of course, there would also have to be a training needs assessment, as there has been when other pieces of legislation have passed through this Parliament. If it was the will of this Parliament to pass this legislation, that work is undergoing. I cannot give a figure right now to Liam as he might look for that. However, I think that ACC Higgins was very clear in his answer that he thought that that could be met under the current provision that it has. However, he did caveat his letter by saying that he would revisit that if that was found not to be the case after the process. I can understand whether there may be some details that have to be worked through, but we have been told very confidently about the efficiencies that will be delivered through the passing of this bill and the integration of VTP in Police Scotland. It is just if, on the basis that this is going to require a training provision of this magnitude across the force, it is not entirely clear how that confidence is borne out at this stage. The only difference is that ACC Higgins writes in his letter between Police Scotland and the VTP officers that additional two weeks. He is saying that for new recruits, of course, that they will include that two to three weeks additional provision so that they are also capable when it comes to track safety and so on. ACC Higgins, as the cabinet secretary has already said, is somebody who comes with considerable experience. If the cabinet secretary was just at school, I was still in Manapies when ACC Higgins had started in the police force. He comes with considerable experience. What I would say is that we are looking at where we can get efficiencies. We think in the corporate functions at the moment that there are significant savings. If we check just one element of that, about £800,000, roughly of savings, just if we look at the amount that is paid to senior management UK-wide or GB-wide, we think that, within those efficiencies, they will absolutely be able to cover those costs. I go back to the fact that this is an operational matter in terms of the training. ACC Higgins is absolutely right to say in his letter to the committee that if those costs are beyond what they think can be covered, they would have the right to revisit those costs. Those officers will have the track safety certificate as a result of this training. Will they also have the on-going biannual training pass or fail to retain those certificates? I go back and say that that would be an option. That would be a decision for Police Scotland to make in front of ACC Higgins in the letter that he writes to the committee. I know that he makes reference to the fact that there would have to be that training needs assessment and that they already have continual training on a regular basis to refresh our courses throughout a police constable's career. Is there not a risk that we are getting? I told things in response to questions that we are legitimately asking in relation to this bill in order to provide a reassurance. Over the course of time, we know that Police Scotland under pressure to up-training in relation to dealing with those mental health issues. The cabinet secretary has talked about firearms issues. They are continuing pressures upon the police to adapt their training to respond to demands of different risks. Is it realistic to assume that three, four or five years down the line that the training undertakings that ACC Higgins is giving us at the moment are likely to be maintained? Is that an offer that is being made at a point of transition in order to facilitate the passage of the bill in this Parliament? It is largely an operational matter, but if you look at the points that have been set out by ACC Higgins, there are three elements to those new recruits. They are looking to change the training module for new recruits, which we provide them with an extra two-weeks training in the way in which BTP officers get at the present moment. We are looking at that element and how that will be taken forward. That is about new individuals coming into the organisation. As you can see from what ACC Higgins has said, he is looking at how upskilling will take place and how it will carry out training needs analysis on how that can best be achieved. That is not unusual to the police in having to do that with the existing officers. For example, they are going through a training programme on stop and search because of the new code of practice. They are going through a training module on the introduction of the provisions in the criminal justice act because of the changes in custody, interim liberation and so on, which was considered by the previous committee to this. That type of on-going training about building in modules for changes in legislation, changes in process, is not unfamiliar to the police and is a common issue that they have to deal with. I have just mentioned two areas where the Assuring the Criminal Justice Act itself has a whole range of different areas that will change for the police. Should it be a priority for Police Scotland to be building in this module of training of two, three weeks in the initial stages and on-going training, given the other pressures that are already on them, to adapt to changing legislation, changing circumstances and the like? That is further down the line in moving towards if the Parliament agrees to integration, but that type of up-skilling training is nothing unusual within Police Scotland. Part of it is going to be built in when officers are coming into the service for those who are ready in the service. The other part, which is important here, is that specialist service provision for those officers who are going to carry out the types of functions that BTP has a specialist function for at the present moment. In the way in which ACC has referred to it, it is encabd qualifications of training that they go through, such as firearms officers and other specialist officers who have that on-going training, because that is a specialist area in which they operate. There are different levels that it will be taking forward, but it is worth keeping in mind that the delivery of railway policing and what we are proposing in this bill is a model that is the same as the cost-charging model that is used for the railway service, paying for the policing service that it receives. That is the intention that we have set out. The legislation is that the on-going provision of railway policing will be paid for by the railway industry. In that sense, it gives it greater financial security and certainty around the resources that will be deployed for that. That will be part of the railway policing agreement. On the point that you make about specialism and the concerns of the industry, as Stuart Stevenson was saying, there were a couple of key concerns for them in terms of the effectiveness but also the cost-efficiency of the setup. I think that they expressed understandable concern at suggestions that around 40 per cent of BTP officers at the moment were expressing some anxiety about remaining in the force, either through the possibility of redundancy or leaving the force simply because it is not the force that they chose to join. What assurances can you give the committee around that? On the point about the future structure, I noticed in the financial memorandum that it suggested that no changes to the senior command structure within Police Scotland are planned. Is there a concern there, then, that British Transport Police will be folded into Police Scotland command structure that does not at the moment recognise at a senior level the specialisms and the expertise that they have? How will that be represented in a command structure that is not changing? You mentioned the concern about the 40 per cent. I am not sure where that 40 per cent comes from. 37.5 per cent in the BTPA. Was that the TSSA survey? That was not for police officers, it was for police staff. Even for police staff? That is not a concern, then. No, I am just saying that it is just for clarification. The figure that you referred to the survey that the TSSA carried out was for police staff. Are you confident that there is not a similar figure among officers? No, I am just referring to the fact that 40 per cent might leave. I am just clarifying what it is. If you look at the survey details, my understanding is that the 40 per cent who said that it would leave would be on the basis of retiree or expecting redundancy. There is no redundancy policy in this matter. The staff will all transfer to Police Scotland. For the discussions that you have had, you do not believe that 37.5 per cent is anything like that figure now? No, I am not questioning the validity of the 37.5 per cent. I am just clarifying that it is not about 40 per cent of people within BTPA. It was a survey of the BTPA staff that I understand was carried out by TSSA. That was primarily based on staff saying that they thought that they would be made redundant or that they would be taking retirement. The only point that I am making to you is that there is no redundancy policy. We as a Government do not have a compulsory redundancy policy. As has already been made clear, the staff in BTPA will transfer into Police Scotland, so both officers and staff will transfer into it. I am just clarifying exactly what that figure of 40 per cent is around. It was not a survey of officers as far as I understand that it was the staff cohort. In relation to the command structure, the structure to have within Police Scotland, it is worth keeping in mind that a number of ACCs hold responsibility for a range of specialisms within the service. If you look at some of them, you will have areas such as, for example, ACC Higgins holds responsibility for airway placing, roads, dogs, underwater, specialities around some of the custody aspects. It is not unusual for senior operational officers to have responsibility for a range of specialisms. What you will often find below those ranks is that officers who have the specialist skillset in delivering those services. One of the things that we have in ACC Higgins, if I recall correctly, is that the staff and the senior ranks within BTPA will transfer into Police Scotland. I want to reassure you that there are no plans to change the command structure in Police Scotland. Having another specialist in it would not be unusual, given the way in which the police service currently operates. Will senior roles all be in the same command structure? It will be in that command structure for one of the senior officers in it to have the command responsibilities for railway policing. In the way that they have for road policing, for dogs, for airport policing, for airport policing and for border policing, ACC Higgins has a specific responsibility in some of those areas. In issues such as counter-terrorism, we have ACC Higgins and Tackle and Serious Organised Crimes. ACC Higgins has a specialist responsibility for those areas of policy and taking them forward. The expectation is that railway policing will move into the responsibility of... Again, it is an operational matter for the chief constable, but from what ACC Higgins is saying is that that will move into one of those specialist command areas. It will then be for them to make sure that they then have a structure in place in order to make sure that they have the right skillset to be able to deliver that specialism. In the way to do with existing specialisms. Oliver Fallol, Mary Douglas and Lee. Thank you, convener. I just want to ask three brief questions and then return very quickly to my original line of questioning. How many requests from British Transport Police have been turned down by Police Scotland? I do not have that information, but we could ask Police Scotland to provide it to the committee. Okay, and then this is one probably for the Transport Minister. Just to set the whole thing in context, I wondered in terms of the cross-border jurisdictional issue if you knew how many passengers and rail services cross the border on a daily basis. I can get that information to the member on that point. I should say that I did write to the Minister for Railways Paul Maynard at the DFT and he produced a response that might be helpful if I can share it to the committee that was simply saying that whatever we decide to do here in Scotland that cross-border working will continue from his perspective and from our perspective constructively. I can give him the exact figures of course in terms of services and passengers. Does that be helpful? Finally, do you have any idea at present where you'd envisage British Transport officers being based, I'm thinking particularly of my own Dumfrieshire constituency which has the west coast mainline running through it? Where would you see the first sort of rail specialist officers being based in terms of the border? I don't see them... Well again an operational matter of course or Police Scotland but I don't see Police officers, BTP officers that are currently based in your constituency having to move away from your constituency where they're currently based but the cabinet secretary may want to add to that or indeed Police Scotland may want to... That's the point of my question. I think that the BTP officers who currently cover my constituency may well be based at Carlisle station just over the border and I'm not aware of them being based for example at Lockerby or at Dumfries or Gretnor or any of the other sort of services so it was... I mean where would you see them being based? Well ultimately for the chief constable to determine where they should be based in order to give effect to the agreement that's put in place for the delivery of railway policing in Scotland. The reality is that the vast majority of BTP assets in Scotland are held in the central belt of Scotland largely at or major train stations but it will be ultimately for the chief constable to determine where they are located in the way in which as for Police officers just now we don't determine where they're located that's an operational issue. When there's a big change coming like this and we've got the proximity of the M74, M6, motorway corridor, some of the principal power lines transferring electricity south of the border and the west coast main line all sitting close together I don't think that my constituents deserve ahead of this process going through Parliament of some reassurance about the specific cover in place for that section and how that's going to operate on a practical basis. I think it's a good illustration about the need to make sure that we have a single command structure for dealing with major infrastructure issues and making sure that we are considering all of these issues in whether it be road policing or whether it be other major bits of infrastructure in criminal railways is that we have a command structure that's able to take a look at those in a broader context and respond to it in an appropriate way. That's exactly the point. It's impossible in that section that lies between Carlyle and Lockerbie on the west coast main line where there are a number of important pieces of infrastructure to have a single command structure. It requires co-operation already in terms of Police Scotland, in terms of the management of the motorway and other things. We need to be very clear about how that would operate in practice and I don't feel that saying that it's an operational matter is enough. I think that we will need to know at least what the operational intention would be under this model before this goes through the Parliament. Right now, in the motorway, it's placed across the border as it stands at the present time in that function as well. I will differ with the member here. We are getting into a very dangerous ground if politicians are going to start setting down where resource will be deployed to. That has always been a long-standing issue for chief constables, not just in territorial policing but also in policing, such as British transport policing. I am confident that— In principle, would you be open to British transport police officers based at Carlyle continuing to cover that section of railway and operating within Scotland? I have no problem with that, if that is the approach that the chief constable in Police Scotland agrees that we integrate railway policing into Police Scotland. If that is the best way in which to deliver that service, I have no problem with that at all. It is ultimately a matter for chief constables, and we should respect their operational independence in those matters. I have since heard you talk about scrutiny and accountability. Obviously, with a number of transformational changes and significant challenges still on-going within Police Scotland, do you not accept that when we have a system at the moment that appears to be working well and where Police Scotland is not routinely turning down requests from British transport police that it seems an odd time to further add to the burdens at a time when police stations in my constituency are proposed for closure, when we have a budget that seems to be out of control and we heard that there will be big efficiencies in creating Police Scotland that just have not transpired? Do you not think that it is a risky point in that process to add further complexity and change? The reality is that the responsibility for railway policing is being devolved to his parment. We need to put in place a structure in order to deliver that. You have chosen the timing. When you are talking about accountability, do you take accountability for having chosen this particular time when there are big challenges for Police Scotland to push ahead with another substantive change? Well, the decision to devolve it was an across-party agreement. There is a difference between devolving and implementing. If you let me finish the point that I want to make, you may differ in your view on the model that we are taking forward, but the reality is that it was an across-party agreement. I differ on the timing. If you let me finish the point that I am making, it was an across-party agreement that it should be devolved. That process has now happened. We need to put a structure in place in order to take account of that. You may differ on what that structure is, but the reality is that the status quo is not an option. We need to put a process and a structure in place. We are taking forward the approach and the model that we think is best to deliver that accountability. It is uniquely different in that matter, but the reality is that the status quo is not an option, given the decision that was made on an across-party basis, that it should be devolved. There is a big difference between devolving and implementing something. What I question is whether this particular moment is the right time to push ahead with that. That is where we differ, but thank you. You may disagree with the model that we are taking forward, but the reality is that we have been given legislative competence on the issue. The status quo is an option because we do not have a process of accountability to exercise that competence. If something happened on our railways, as happens just now for the transport minister, this Parliament and its members will not be happy about it. They will be expecting the Government to be able to account for it and to explain those matters. It is not a case of being devolved, so we will just ignore it, even though we will get responsibility for it. We have to put something in place. You may disagree with the model, but we need to put a process in place. Can I just press the cabinet secretary on that point? Is there any other legislation that has been devolved that you have not done anything about now that you are going to defer it, for example, until there is a better time to do it? In relation to policing? No, in relation to anything that has been devolved to this Parliament. In relation to policing matters, not to my knowledge. For example, welfare powers that has been decided, that has been devolved, but perhaps that has been delayed because the time is not right now. I think that that was all for Mundell's point. The fact that it is being devolved does not mean that you actually have to act on it in this moment in time. Would that be the case, or is that wrong? I think that it would be wrong to characterise the issue around the social security provisions as not being taken forward. Well, if you could answer the substantive point, which is... Because of the complexity relating to them, and with some of the pan UK benefits, so it is about making sure that that is taken forward correctly, it is not about not implementing it. The reality is that we have to put something in place, because the status quo is not an option, because we have been given devolved competence on it. What we cannot do is have devolved competence on it and say, well, we are not going to do anything with it, we are just going to leave it. You may have an issue around the time frame on that, and the issue in policing is that we are in a position where we are having it devolved. There will be, if the Parliament agrees to it, that there is almost a two-year window before it becomes integrated into Police Scotland, which, as Bernie Higgins described, is a luxury compared to what they have gone through. I think that we have got the answer to that. Thank you, cabinet secretary. You cannot ignore the reality of where we are. Mary, followed by Douglas, then Mary. Thank you. I just want to heart back to a point that was made earlier, and it was really a supplementary to that. I mean, you talked to yourself, cabinet secretary, about how you have four stations in your own constituency area, where there are no British Transport Police based. In my constituency, Angus North and Merns, I have three stations that are in exactly the same position. We also talked about how British Transport Police presence is mainly focused on the central belt area, with a little coverage out with that. We were sent the figures from British Transport Police, and when you look at the stations north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, you are looking at Dundee, about five officers, Aberdeen similar, and Inverness, similar numbers to that, too. I certainly feel like I take some comfort from the fact that, if we have our policemen within Police Staff within Police Scotland, if they are to receive more training, we will certainly receive more of an enhanced service when it comes to incidents on the rail line in areas such as the northeast and the highlands and islands. Do you believe that that will be the case, and can you confirm that that will be the case? I think that it is probably more important what the view of Police Scotland is in those matters. It has been very clear in the evidence that you received from Macy C Higgins, and the letter is also provided about upskilling a greater number of officers within Police Scotland in dealing with railway issues. At the same time, we are also having the specialist skillset that is necessary in order to meet some of the very specific natures that occur within the railway sector. The reality is that there will be benefits that will come to Police Scotland from this and some of the processes that BTPs use that could be used for some of the ways to reform and change some of the ways in which Police Scotland operates as well. I think that there will be a two-way benefit that will come from this. One of the wider things that I believe will come from this is greater resilience in how we police our railways, because we will no longer be into a situation where a request has to be made by BTP or a particular operation has to be organised on a joint basis. It will be in a position where, as in when resource is required, it will just be deployed. If it is done on a routine basis, it will be done on a routine basis, and it is done on a specialist basis, it will be done on a specialist basis. There will be a much more simplified process to what we have at the present moment. I believe that it will provide a greater capacity in how we deliver railway policing in Scotland, alongside having that specialist nature that can be deployed as and when it is necessary. In the locations where it is necessary, and in which the chief constable views are where it should be based as well. Then I want to move on to a point that was raised by Liam McArthur, which was about the staff survey that was carried out by TESSA. It said that it is just a confirmation on the point that Liam McArthur had made earlier. It said that it is a reasonable leaf that, as BTP-contracted staff being forced to switch employers, redundancy must become an option prior to or after 1 April 2019. I asked Liam McArthur if he believed that that was the case, if he checked out that information either with Police Scotland or with the Government, and he answered, it is the case, we have checked it out. Can you provide the clarity on that issue of redundancy? I will come in on some of that. If I may, the point being about that staff survey, just to reiterate what the cabinet secretary has said, that 37.5 per cent, either expected to retire or expected redundancy, we have a no compulsory redundancy policy, so I can give an absolute assurance. When we are talking about transferring staff and officers, the triple lock guarantees their job, so there should be no concerns about that. Yes, absolutely, this Government's policy has been no compulsory redundancies. I set out a letter to Emanuel Cortez, the head of the TSA, reiterating those points, so I do not know why there would be a gap in information. I am certainly happy to continue conversations with the TSA, but our policy is that of no compulsory redundancies if the transfer takes place as employees of Police Scotland. I also asked the TSA at that meeting when it came to the Justice Committee to ask how many people had taken part in that survey as well, which they did not answer and did not answer in the supplementary evidence that they provided to that. But another point that they raised was that they believed that their staff would also receive £3,000 less. The supplementary evidence that they provided to the committee was almost like they were doing a comparison between the positions that their staff hold now and positions that were being advertised or almost a like-for-like situation in Police Scotland, so can you confirm the situation and what that would be in terms of the salary? Again, when I asked if that was something that they believed to be the case and if they had pursued that, either with Police Scotland or the Government, they said that it is the case that they have checked it out, so it is just really to clarify that with you. Again, the triple lock guarantee is around terms and conditions and ACC Higgins and his evidence. I will find the exact quote, but ACC Higgins and his evidence to you at the Justice Committee made the point that there are a number of different terms and conditions and pension schemes that operate. He gave his own personal example of, I think, the allowances that he was able to get as an officer that other officers do not necessarily have because they joined it at a later stage. The fact that Police Scotland is able to, as a structure and as an organisation, as an institution, incorporate a number of different terms and conditions is nothing new to them. When we talk about terms and conditions being protected, then that would, of course, apply to their salary levels as well. The TSA should have every assurance from what I have, the letters that I have given to the conversations that I have had. In fact, I have met with Manuel Cortez directly on this issue. I will continue to give those assurances where I can that when we talk about that triple lock guarantee, protecting their terms and conditions, that includes their salary, includes their entitlements and their pensions. All of that is being worked through the joint programme board at the moment, and the BTPA and the BTPF have been engaged very much in that. Thank you, convener. I was not going to mention this, but the cabinet secretary thinks that it is a significant issue. We have heard from Fulton MacGregor and Ron Mackay that they have questioned on it about opposition parties not responding to the Government consultation. Since 1999 to 2007, how often did the SNP respond to executive consultations offering viable alternatives? I think that it is 100 per cent of the time. No, I do not think that that would be the case. I see that Stuart Stevenson does not. I am asking the question to you, so you do not think that that is the case, so it does not always happen. I do not think that what always happens is that parties respond to consultations. That the opposition parties respond to the Scottish executive consultations. There have been times in the past when they have, yes. You are suggesting that every party should have done it at this time, but are you accepting? I do not think that I have. Position brought up by Ronan, and we have covered it. It is really not your main to it, and perhaps Ronan should not have brought it up in the first place. Can I ask the cabinet secretary and the minister to base your decisions on evidence and advice from senior officers and officials? In many issues, yes. Can I then give you a couple of quotes and just see what your response is? Detective Deputy Chief Constable Hanstock of the British Transport Police said, we have not been able to identify any operational or economic benefits of this merger. Stephen Mannion, former commander of BTP Scotland, you can police a railways without BTP, but you cannot police it as effectively. The chief executive of the BTPA has said that they have identified several hundred security risks to the merger and ACC Higgins, someone whom you described as an officer with a considerable degree of experience, said, and I quote to this committee, that there is a risk that, on transfer, the skill base will be diluted. He continued that there is a risk that the terms and conditions might be diluted. He then followed that up by saying that there is also a risk on the financial site. It is necessary to ensure that Police Scotland is properly compensated for taking on the additional responsibility. Those are all risks that we recognise. What is the Government's view on those risks that have been highlighted by Police Scotland, by the BTP, the BTPA and many others? I do not think that anybody would dispute the fact that there are risks associated with the integration of British Transport Police into Police Scotland. The issue is about how you manage those risks and how you put in place the appropriate processes in order to deal with that effectively. That is exactly what the joint programme talks about, is identifying what those risks are, what those factors are and then to put in place the appropriate mechanisms and processes in order to deal with it and to make sure that they then have a process of oversight on how that is going to be taken forward. Anybody would suggest that there are no risks associated with it. There were risks associated with moving to a single force. There are risks on a day-in, day-out basis on how policing is taken forward, how any of our emerging services are taken forward. The merger of any element of our public services will have risks associated with it. I am confident from the advice that I have been provided and also with the approach that we are taking that those risks can be appropriately managed and we can put in place a process that will ensure that we have a mechanism that is able to mitigate those risks and to put in place the appropriate level of service agreement with the industry, which reflects what they believe is necessary in order to deliver rabie policing in Scotland effectively. You said that no one should be in any doubt we want to deliver as good if not better a service as currently delivered. Do you therefore agree with the real delivery group that integrating the service is not in the interests of passengers? Well, I believe that this will deliver a better service for passengers. So you do not agree with the real delivery group? I do not agree with them. I think that it would deliver a better service. The reason that I think that it would deliver a better service is on the basis of the range of officers who will be trained and how to operate within our railway service alongside that specialist function, which will give greater capacity to what we have at the present moment. That neatly comes on to training, which I want to focus on now. You could not answer Liam McArthur's points about the cost of training, but I presume that you will be able to provide to the committee that the average cost of the current 11-week training process will be able to get the weekly cost of that and then multiply that by the additional three weeks that ACC Higgins is saying in his letter and, therefore, the number of neurocruits coming through. Those costs will be available to the committee. Is that correct? That type of information will be available to the committee, although a word of warning would be to apply that simple analysis as to how you calculate the cost. Okay, but it would be better then. I think that you are being overly simplistic in how you would actually calculate that, which I think would be rather naïve. What you have got to recognise is that there may be additional training capacity provided within it, but the actual cost for that will actually be different. It will not have all the same additional overhead costs of bringing in folk for a bespoke piece of training that was completely outwith the normal routine training programme. However, the principle of what—if you let me finish the point that I am trying to make—the principle of the information that you are looking for should be available, and Police Scotland should be able to deliver that for you. ACC Higgins has said in his letter that there will be an additional three weeks of training going from 11 up to 14 weeks. Therefore, there are very stable costs involved at Tally All-In, putting all our new officers through an additional three weeks of training. So, just on a very basic and potentially naïve level—I take your criticism on board—we will be able to look at those costs. Can I also then go on to further costs involved in terms of the PTSD certificates? Did you allude in your evidence to Liam McArthur that you do not believe all 1700 plus police officers in Scotland will have that PTSD certificate? We have 17,000 police officers in Scotland. It will be for Police Scotland to determine what that training programme will be. Do you think that they should all have that certificate? Well, it is not for me to determine that. It is for Police Scotland to determine that. Do you think that they should, as Cabinet Secretary? Let me just explain before you interrupt me again. The training programme for new recruits coming into the service will be a training programme for existing officers in the service. They will determine, on the basis of a TNA, a training needs analysis on how that training will be taken forward, what will be delivered in that training and they will develop that in partnership with their colleagues at BTP. What they will then do is that they will then have additional training, which will be for those officers who are providing that specialist railway function. If they have to require particular specialist types of qualification, it will be for that training needs analysis to determine how that should be delivered and who should receive that specialist training. Whether it is a case of all 17,000 receiving that certificate or whether it is that cohort that will be operating within railway policing, that will be a decision for Police Scotland to take forward. I am asking you a question, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Do you think that all 17,000 plus officers in Scotland should have that certificate? I am asking you because you are here giving evidence and I would appreciate you telling us your answer, your opinion, your belief. Should they all have that certificate or not? Let me give you my opinion. The clerk has just passed me something that BTPF has said that no officer should go near the railway if they do not have a PTS certificate. I think that is the point. Let me give you an answer to it and to be very clear about what my answer is. That is a matter that is an operational decision for Police Scotland to make. I do not direct Police Scotland on how many they should have in air support or how many they should have in road policing and the qualifications that they have, how many they should have in firearms, and what qualifications they should have. I am not going to start setting that out for railway policing. When I asked Neil Curtis, the directorial services limited and Darren Horley, Virgin Trains, if every officer should go through the PTSC process and how would you react if Police Scotland said that it was not going to do that, they said that they would be concerned and very concerned. Would you accept that, if Police Scotland did not take that operational decision, if the chief constable decides not to do that, you would agree that real operators would be concerned and very concerned? I have no doubt that, as ACC Higgins made clear, if there is a decision made by the Parliament that we should integrate railway policing into Police Scotland, they will engage with the railway industry. As they have to some degree already and have been engaged in some of the meetings that have been taken place with the Minister for Transport in looking to try to address the concerns that they have. It may be that their concern can be addressed, that might result in more extensive training being provided or not, but what I have no doubt will happen is that they will engage with them to explore that and to discuss that concern with them. I just want to continue on training. Do you think that the level of training, additional training required, will be more or less than the upskill that was required due to the change in procedures for stop and search? The training that will be delivered for railway policing? To upskill all our officers to 17,000. Would you accept my assumption that it will be a larger process to make sure that all 17,000 plus officers in Scotland have more detailed knowledge on railway policing than it was for changes to the stop and search procedure? I suspect that you will probably have a clearer answer to that from Police Scotland once you have completed your training needs analysis. We are trying to take a decision as Parliamentarians and as a committee prior to that. So would you therefore accept that if the bulk of the £2.8 million cost of the change to the procedure of stop and search went to training, we are looking at a far higher figure in terms of the changes to over 17,000 officers being upskilled in railway policing? You do not know that until the training needs analysis has been completed. Do you think that it would be a fair assumption to make? In your part, possibly. For others, they may look at it and think, well, let's carry out the training needs analysis. Can we be realistic if we can? We were speaking with stop and search about a change to the procedure. We are speaking about railway policing asking over 17,000 officers, none of whom decided to go into a specialised force that would allow them to concentrate on railway policing. I think that it is a fairly safe assumption to make that the amount of money, the time and the cost involved will be significantly higher for railway policing than it was to amend the stop and search procedures. Again, we do not know that information until the training needs analysis has been completed. Can I finish off then on timing? Sorry, just on training. Do you think that the effective way to do this is going to be online delivery, as ACC Higgins is suggesting? It will not be an operational matter again for Police Scotland to determine how they can best affect the training of their officers, as it is now. I have some concerns about that. On timing, Oliver Mundell focused on it and so did others. You mentioned that the luxury that ACC Higgins commented on about having two years, which you presume accept, is a criticism of the way that the SNP Government centralised Police Scotland. However, given the timing and the issues that are no longer available in terms of some of the problems that we have seen with Police Scotland being merged and the two years that we will have here, do you still think that now is the right time to do it? Oliver Mundell's question is the convener's question. You have powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament to do this, not necessarily in the way that you are going about, but there is no time frame in terms of that. Do you think that a time when there is low and significant morale issues in Police Scotland, we should also be taking on board additional challenges that would be faced with the integration of BTP into Police Scotland? Let me first of all deal with the issue of moving to a single force. It was, with all due respect, a piece of legislation that was supported by our Parliament, not at stage 3. not at stage 3. by our party agenda moving to a national service. About we abstained, Liberals voted against and others voted for. You put that in the record, but that's moved on. The term luxury was used by ACC Higgins in taking it forward, given the challenges that they had in integrating eight territorial forces into a single police service. His view was that the time frame of two years for taking forward integration of BTP into Police Scotland was a luxury in comparison to that. You can interpret that in a way in which people would say, well, that's a criticism of what happened with Police Scotland, or some of me say, well, it's a reflection of the greater complexity there was around integrating eight forces, as opposed to a specialist division that has in the region of around 200 officers providing railway policing here in Scotland. On the issue of timing, I suppose that for those who oppose the idea of integrating BTP into Police Scotland, no time would be a good time to do it. And no matter what time we chose to do it, they would oppose it and they would argue that it's the wrong thing to do. My view is that Police Scotland, and from the discussion that I've had with Police Scotland, they are more than capable and able to take forward integration into the service over the next two years, if that's to all of the Parliament, and to deliver effective railway policing. My issue on morale issues came from Callum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation today at their conference. He was speaking and painting a depressing picture of relations with the SPA and morale issues within Police Scotland. Callum Steele told the committee that the SPF has not taken a position on that, it's not for them to do it. But when you have the Police Federation telling their conference that your single police force has morale issues, surely you can consider that now is not the time to add to the burden of that police force with integrating BTP, a very successful organisation into one that is still struggling with the challenges of integrating eight legacy forces into one? I think it's also fair to say that Callum Steele's evidence to the committee recognised some of the risks and challenges that would be in integration but viewed that none of them were insurmountable in taking it forward. Look at the issue of now is not the time. The reality is that it isn't happening now. The legislation is before Parliament just now. The integration wouldn't take place until April 2019. I want to very briefly return to the issue of tasers before I ask my question. I want to be absolutely clear when you say that it's an operational matter for Police Scotland if the integration goes ahead, whether or not transport policing officers in Scotland carry tasers. We are left then, I would put it to you, with two possible scenarios. If a decision is made that railway policing officers in Scotland don't need to carry tasers after the integration, if it goes ahead, we will have a situation where in Scotland railway policing officers don't carry tasers and in the rest of the UK they do, or if the decision is taken for railway policing officers in Scotland to carry tasers, they will also require to be firearm trained, which officers in the rest of the UK will not—I presume—a substantial cost. It's worth keeping in mind that the extent of taser deployment to a limited number of train stations in Scotland is on a smaller scale than it is in other parts of the UK. I believe that that's part reflected in the risk assessment that BTPs have conducted into where they think it's necessary. For example, in many of the BTP officers that we have at the train stations, which are now covered by tasers, many of the BTP officers don't actually have tasers. It is a deployment of a limited number of them in those particular locations. That deployment was discussed at the time with the BTP, and it was reflective of the approach that it was taking on a pan-UK basis on the risk-threat analysis of those particular facilities. However, that is not different to what Police Scotland would do just now around major infrastructure issues that are responsible for policing, and it would deploy to that and respond to that in a way that it thinks is proportionate and appropriate to the intelligence, risk and threat assessment that it then makes on the basis of that. For example, some of the risks that are associated around certain issues in places such as Central London are greater than they are in other parts of the country. You would expect deployment to reflect that type of risk analysis that is being taken forward by a chief constable. However, it is also worth keeping in mind that you make the point about a difference in approach if the chief constable of Police Scotland decided that they weren't going to deploy tasers to train stations, how that would be different from the rest of the UK. However, there are forces in England and Wales that deploy tasers on a routine basis in a way that Police Scotland does not do. There are already differences that take place, and it is ultimately for the chief constable to make that determination. Mr Finnie would probably be able to cite the approach that was taken around the deployment of firearms officers in the Highlands, which raised concerns from Police Scotland. That was on the basis of taking a pan-scorish approach to that threat assessment. It would be for the chief constable to discern, while having looked at the whole of the country, do I then take a bespoke approach to different parts of the country based on what I think the risk is and to deploy a model that is based on that? It is a matter for the chief constable but it is not as straightforward as saying that you do or you don't do it. There are a whole range of different factors that would be taken into account in the type of dynamic type of assessment that would be carried out. The reality is that we already have a difference in deployment around firearms officers, their use for routine policing matters, the deployment of taser officers across the UK. There are already differences. PSNI and anam service in itself have differences, but I am confident that, with a command structure that will make sure that we are able to look at that wider issue around infrastructure policing in Scotland and to take an informed decision on the basis of intelligence and understanding and the threat and the risk that is associated with that and to deploy appropriately. Against my better judgment, I have both Douglas and John Wonton coming in, if you are very brief. All members have just received an email that says that Police Scotland will now be from today routinely patrolling the Scottish Parliament and the public air outside with tasers and that is not based on any threat to this building. It is just to ask, in light of that email that we have just received from the chief executive, how it is a dynamic assessment, but given the events in London last week, do you think that the regular deployment of tasers, whether it is in large public areas such as railways or public buildings such as this, will change in light of what happened last week in London? I am conscious that we are going off the bill to some extent, for which we are meant to be given evidence. I was obviously aware of the approach that Police Scotland is taking. It is a very good example of the dynamic nature of the assessment that is conducted by Police Scotland in looking at the issues and considering the intelligence and what the threat risk is and to deploy on what it sees as being in an appropriate way. You are correct to say that the deployment of officers with tasers at the Scottish Parliament is not based on any specific intelligence or threat to the Scottish Parliament, but it has been taken forward on a precautionary basis. At this present time, Police Scotland, along with the parliamentary authorities, is conducting a review of the policing and security arrangements that we have here in the Scottish Parliament, reflecting on the events that took place at Westminster last week. That will be taken forward over the next couple of weeks. It is a reflection of being able to respond to a particular set of circumstances and to take a proportionate response based on their understanding and until we learn the full events of what happened last week in Westminster and where that has any wider implications. That is an ongoing thing. It does not happen at a fixed point in time. It is constantly reviewed, refreshed and reconsidered as and when it is necessary, and the decision to deploy taser at the Parliament has been made by the chief constable based on considering that assessment and whether the review has been taken forward between Police Scotland, the security services and the Parliament's authorities. That is about the issue of taser deployment by British Transport Police. Before that took place, Chief Superintendent McBride engaged with the Justice Spokespeople of all the parties. My understanding was that that was a risk assessment, as you rightly say, based on the threat posed to transport hubs, if you like. That is part of the intelligence process, and it is unlikely that that would have taken place without consultation with, for instance, the security services and Police Scotland. You are right to confirm my understanding that, albeit that that is an operational decision for British Transport Police, there would have been liaison with Police Scotland and others regarding that decision. I can confirm if there was a liaison between Police Scotland and the BTP before that decision was made. My final question is for the transport minister. The RMT gave us evidence in a previous session, and they said that they have not ruled out the option of taking industrial action to retain BTP officers on the railway, because they are concerned about the safety of railway staff and passengers on trains in Scotland, and other unions have indicated a similar stance. Are you prepared for further disruption on the railways? Does the statement concern you in any way? I know that McHog and the RMT well, and I look to engage on the back of that statement that was made to reach out to the RMT to hear their concerns and to give them as appropriate assurances as I possibly can. As the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks, safety is paramount for everybody. That is the safety of passengers and commuters, but of course safety of those who work on our railways is a dedicated staff team, whether they are drivers, conductors, station staff or otherwise. The safety of all those involved in the railway is paramount and principal concerns. Therefore, if the RMT has concerns about that, I will meet the RMT as I do on a regular basis, but on a specific issue to try to allay some of those fears. I will certainly reach out to them on the basis of those concerns. There have been a number of references to infrastructure, policing and references to air travel and sea travel. I wonder whether the minister for transport and perhaps cabinet secretary would also like to answer that. Do you accept the distinction about the security that is possible through, for example, sea travel and air travel, where some manifested passengers, i.e. they are known who is going to be on board, and there are pre-journey security checks. The railway infrastructure, where literally someone can get on at the station, off at another station, makes it the risks just that much higher. Police Scotland has said that it recognises the specialism and the expertise that British transport police officers have, and it would not look to diminish that expertise in any way, shape or form. So recognising that specialism exists because of the unique nature of railway travel, perhaps to other forms of travel, would want to maintain that. Police Scotland would want to maintain that as well. At the point that ACC Higgins has also made, it would make sense to have consistency if Police Scotland already had responsibility for roads, ports and airports, then railway policing being added into the mix would provide some degree of consistency, but the cabinet secretary would probably want to add to that. I think that it's important to recognise that nobody is saying that railway policing is the same as airport policing or port policing. They all have different challenges that come with them, different risks that are associated with them. What they are is their important parts of our infrastructure, like our roads as well, and that brings particular challenges with it. One of the issues that was highlighted in the UK Government's strategic defense and security review was to look at how we could better police our infrastructure within the UK as a whole. One of the issues that they were looking at was the issue of having infrastructure policing delivered in a way that would more effectively deliver that than they have at the present time. What route do they choose to go down in England and Wales? I don't know whether they choose to go towards an infrastructure policing side in a formal or informal basis as a matter for them. However, I think that it underlines the value that you get from having a single command structure that is able to police those infrastructure areas in a broader way than you have by having it compartmentalised, by having a particular command structure to deal with one element of it and another command structure to deal with another element of it. Cabinet secretary, in all fairness, it was just the recognition that the challenges are so much more for railway policing because someone can literally get off at one station and on another station. I don't agree that they are more. I think that they are different. They don't have the same checks that air and sea have, so just to be aware that there are extra checks in the air and sea that they perhaps aren't in the airway. But Banglawn is that they are different. It's not that they are more. Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes a very detailed evidence session. Thank the minister and the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending. We now move it into private session. The next committee meeting will be on 18 April, where we consider our draft stage 1 reports on the limitation of childhood abuse Scotland Bill and the railway policing Scotland Bill. Nice to spend briefly to allow witnesses to leave and for the public gallery to clear. Thank you very much.