 Fy fawr, a chyfnodd, i gael i'r Cymru 11 ym 2017. Fy fawr, mae'n gweithio ar Mary Fee, ac rwy'n gweithio i'r Clare Baker, sy'n gweithio ar gyfer y cyfnodd. Y gydag ym M1, y ddechrau i ddau'r cyfnodd i gael i'r cyfnodd. Mae'r cyfnodd yn cyfnodd i'r cyfnodd i'r cyfnodd 4, getting from Jessica S늘!gesetz of the key issues, emerging from the evidence received on the limitation childhood abuse Scotland bill at stage 1 in private. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is a spice paper, and I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clark and paper 2, which is a spice paper and to the written submissions provided by some of the witnesses, and I thank TransPennine and Cross Country for their submissions. I welcome to the panel Andrew Cooper, managing director of Cross Country, Neil Curtis, head of compliance, direct rail services limited, David Lister, safety sustainability and assurance director, ScotRail Alliance, Graham Miklejohn, regional development manager, TransPennine Express and Darren Horley, commercial and operations strategy manager, Virgin Trains. I hope that you did not have any difficulty getting in this morning in adverse weather conditions. We will go straight to questions from members. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, convener. It is by nature of things a relatively general and open question, but I think it will lead to other things. Would it be correct to say that the rail operating companies that you represent's primary interest in relation to the future of policing on our railway network is twofold? First of all, that it is an effective service that meets the needs of security in the network, and secondly that it needs to be delivered at a price that is appropriate, given that it is a commercial relationship that you have with the policing. Do you have concerns on either of those issues at the outset? I am sure that that will enable other members to take this elsewhere. Right to left, I suspect, would be good enough unless you have another view. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to attend this morning. I think that it is quite right to say that it is a commercial relationship, so the price matters. We are running a business, and we have very clear relationships with the police service at the moment. It also needs to be, as you say, effective because, particularly in the case of handling the railway when it does not work effectively, whatever the cause of disruption, and sometimes we have to call on the services of the police. It is a priority for customers, and that comes through very loud and clear in all the national passenger survey tracking research that is done every year, that handling delays and problems in operating the railway are an absolute priority for our customers. In regards to commercial aspect, it is an important aspect to ensure that we are receiving value for money and the services that those give as well. In a freight operating company, we have a requirement to work throughout the whole country, not just through franchises, station to station, so we have a different kind of requirement of BTP, not only in regards to services that provide on general day-to-day services, but also when things, as Andrew said earlier, go start to go wrong. It is highly important to our organisation to ensure that we have that support as and when it is required and that we fully understand our business needs as well, which in some instances is quite technical. We may come back to this. Can I just ask, do DRS operate services out with the GB network across the channel and elsewhere in Europe, although other freight operators certainly do? No. We are UK bound. Right. In that case, I won't ask for the supplementary. Thank you for your opportunity to give evidence here today. I am representing the ScotRail Alliance for Network Rail in Scotland and A Valley of ScotRail. For both halves of the alliance, just as you say, overridingly, the safety and security on the railway and making sure that we minimise any impact to disruption on the railway as a result of any crime or disorder is paramount to us in terms of the policing of the railways. Equally, the commercial side of that is important for both halves of the alliance as it is a commercial arrangement. Igar Ash, good morning. We fully agree with the comments that have been made, both in terms of the importance of the service that is provided and the significant reassurance that it gives to passengers on the network and the support operationally when things go wrong to recover and to have trains running back as they should do going forward. It is imperative to say that the BTP across the network that we operate is our integral partner to the delivery of our operations. They are seen to be connected with all operators in a seamless delivery of service to the travelling public. As a cross-border operator who is based predominantly in the north of England and also connecting to Lockerbie, Glasgow and Edinburgh, we see a lot of officers that we work with in the BTP today who have begun their careers over in Cullcarns and Glasgow, but they have ended up in Manchester and they have ultimately transferred back up to north of the border. The definite career progression that they have enjoyed so far is the skill set and the knowledge of the network across the north and into Scotland, which we will benefit from on a day-to-day service delivery viewpoint. Good morning. I am down from 13 trains. As you can appreciate, our network runs from London Light through to Scotland, so we enjoy the BTP right from one end of the country to Scotland itself. It is a commercial relationship, but it is actually a partnering relationship rather than a partnership. We want to see that continuity stay throughout our operations. First and foremost, it is a safe railway, and that is the role of the BTP playing on the side of the continuity yet again. In terms of the business needs, we want to reassurance that our customers are safe. First and foremost, our staff are safe at stations, and it is commercially effective to the railway. As my colleagues to my left have pointed out in terms of the commercial operations, it is quite imperative that minimal disruption is caused between the specificity and force. You made a distinction—this is my final point for the moment, at least—from partnership and partnering, which I do not fully understand. Would you like to explain it to me? In terms of a partnership, you tend to run things jointly. A partnering relationship in my term is that you do it together. You have the same outputs and the same goals, and you share the outcomes. It is a partnering relationship, in my view, in terms of the police know what I come and go and I focus, but I joint focus and strategy it. Is that similar to the Abellio network rail part? That is a similar sort of idea. That is fine. Good morning. The Scottish Government's policy is to provide railway policing agreements between industry and the police in Scotland, and they will replace the police service agreements. Do you have any particular concerns about the Government's proposals on railways? There will be slightly different from the arrangement that we have at the moment, where we are dealing with a police force that is exclusively serving the railway. There is an added complexity when we are trying to agree a contract with a body that has much broader policing requirements. We would need to be much more confident that the things that we are seeing at the moment—in most of the paperwork that I have seen—are stated commitments, but we need to be assured through that contract that those things will be delivered. It will be subtly different from the arrangement that we currently have with the British Transport Police, simply because we are contracting with a body that intends to have a specialism but is not dedicated to serving the railway. What specific differences do you mean when you talk about that? At the moment, when we sign an agreement with the British Transport Police Authority, we know that their interests are exclusively for the railway. We know that the body is set up by the Department of Transport, and it has objectives that are better aligned with those of the industry than I have ever seen in my railway career. In a very strong position there, it is hard to see that it will be quite as easy for Police Scotland to be able to put themselves in that position, because it has much broader obligations for policing in Scotland. We would need to be much more confident and, therefore, much more prescriptive in any agreements that we have with Police Scotland, as opposed to the dedicated force that is the British Transport Police. Police Scotland has given us reassurances that it will treat it very much as a specialist service that will not be compromised. You will appreciate that. We have heard that evidence from them. Anyone else? Have a view on it? I think our focus is more about ensuring that the BTP continues to play the same critical role, as I mentioned previously, in keeping the travelling public and ourselves, our staff and that's safe. If Police Scotland, in terms of its takeover of the BTP, can honour that and give us the guarantees in terms of the same service and level of service that we enjoy from the British Transport Police, which the Transport Minister has said that he can give us reassurances. We are looking for reassurances that I can give to staff. We have no objections to the reforms, but we need that reassurance for the points that my colleague Andy Coupe has pointed out. As well as a freight operating company, we have a different requirement to the passenger groups who operate through stations and main lines in the main. We operate right the way out throughout the UK. Some branch lines that we are the only operator operate down those areas, and freight has a distinct difference of requirement. As my colleagues have said earlier that it is a requirement, we fully support the changes, but we need that guarantee that what we have currently got is meant to end. If, in fact, we can improve, that is always the best way to go forward. I will add in to the comments that my colleagues have made. We should recognise that the minister has been very generous in time. It has been given so far, and there has almost been an evolution in some of the comments that we have been making, particularly those that affect operations south of the border. I mentioned earlier that we are predominantly based in the north of England. Our concern is what happens when you cross the border from one force to another. That degree of co-operation is there today, and it has been reassured that we definitely have that going forward. We think that going forward, and we have mentioned it in the written evidence that we have provided, the ability to have some sort of agreement between the force in Scotland and the BTP south of the border, just to ensure this continuity, that there are no issues, or that the risk of misunderstandings are services passed to and to improve over the border, probably would be a wise path to be taken just to ensure that co-operation is founded from day one. Given where we have started from with those early discussions with the minister, that has really been understood and taken on by the officials. That is encouraging. I ask a little bit more about the railway policing agreements. There is a concern expressed today and, in some of the other evidence, we have heard that Police Scotland is taking over the railway function, whereas perhaps the emphasis before was more on the railway transport side of things. Was it ScotRail perhaps suggested that a way around that might be to look at a specialist board? Could you maybe comment further than that and hear other views on that? In our evidence, we did talk about the specialist board. As you will have seen in the legislation, what has been proposed is a management forum. It is not quite a board, but it is moving along that direction. It is encouraging that some of the requests that we have been making have been made their way through to the legislation. One of the areas that we are talking about is the railway policing agreements and police service agreements that exist today. The industry, and I believe that evidence has been given by the railway development group in relation to the existing police service agreements, are under discussion in the UK as desirable to improve those. It is important that, when the railway agreements are put in place, it is not taken that we adopt the exact same style as the existing police service agreements. The other aspect that we see is important to take into consideration, so that the governance and ensuring that railway priorities are kept as part of the overall standards of Police Scotland would be really important for us as a railway industry going forward. The setting up of a management forum is a good start, but one of the areas that we are conscious of is that, for the BTP, where you have BTPA, whose entire focus is on the policing of the railway, the governance is entirely focused on that. In Police Scotland, the railway policing will be a relatively small aspect for the wider policing for Scotland. We have been reassured that the Scottish Police Authority is looking to get some railway experience on to the SPA board, but that is something that we would see as really important in order to ensure that railway interests are not only seen by the dedicated railway police management but also considered by the Scottish Police Authority. I am supposed to take that a little bit further, but the reason why we are relatively this is really important is understanding the railway and understanding the problems that can arise there is germane to the policing of it, to minimising disruptions. Could you perhaps elaborate on that side of things a little bit, because that is certainly becoming sure that we are interested to hear your views. It is really important for the industry, as we have said, to ensure that there is minimal disruption, that our staff remain confident, that the Traffin Public remains confident with the services provided. The British Transport Police Specialism enables them to have the appropriate balance and they do it very effectively to ensure that they balance the needs of investigating crime, managing incidents and also looking to the needs that the Traffin Public has to be travelling and therefore getting the network back into operation as quickly as possible and be that responding to a bomb threat incident and making the appropriate threat assessment so that they can balance the risks there or be that dealing with the fatality, etc. They are able to do that very effectively. As has already been said, we have had good engagement with the Transport Minister in relation to the proposals and with the Police Scotland. We are getting reassurances that that specialism will be retained, but that is clearly very important to us as an industry. Any other views? Mr Cooper? In my evidence to you, I made the comment that the BTP naturally has a thorough understanding of its duties and obligations to police independently. It balances that with its role as a service funded directly by the industry. The approach that officers take when they are dealing with issues on the railway, which my colleague has said, is very often based on experience and knowledge and lots of empirical data that enable them to make a risk assessment of the situation that faces them because it is in a sense a controlled environment. I know what they are looking for on a railway and what the likely externalities are, which is not always the case as it were on the high street. Therefore, BTP officers are able to take a decision that is in the best interests of the railway and the passengers who are travelling and the wider implications of the decisions that they take. Obviously, we are running a network across the whole of the country, which is not in our experience when we deal with Home Department forces back in England. It is not always the case. There is a distinction to be drawn between having a force that has a specialism within it and when in 17,000 officers in Police Scotland it is not going to be easy to see how that specialism can be too widespread and having a force that is absolutely dedicated and therefore has an ethos and approach to policing the railway, which is in the best interests of ensuring the safety of passengers and the public, but also making sure that there are not any unintended consequences from their actions. Mr Horliff? I echo my colleague Andy Ceepe. First and foremost, it is a force that is funded by the industry through the fare-paying passenger. The BTP has a specialism in terms of managing the instance on the rail network that is very different to the high street. In my experience, a recent incident at the Lockerbie area where the civil police attended a suicide and they appreciate that there were some complicated matters, but the way our driver was treating in terms of taking off site and questioned as if he was a victim in this was a lot different to how the BTP would handle an incident. There is a lot of nervousness around our staff and how they will be treated in such instances, so it is critical for us as a business and giving our versions to staff and passengers. Any other comments from anyone else? Mr Carter? I think that it also, just to add to the comments that we have mentioned about cross-border transfers, both north and south. A couple of concerns, really, is that the BTP is a specialist force within the rail industry. The terminology within the rail industry can be quite complicated. I started in the rail industry in 1998 and I thought that it was something new and bright and I am still learning terminology now. One thing I would be concerned about and we have been given some assurances or reassurances that it will be looked at is in regard to the education of Police Scotland officers who may be asked to attend a situation such as that that was talked about earlier, but what concerns me is the misunderstanding of terminology and the misunderstanding of the rail industry in its entirety. It is complex in some ways and there may come across some things that will never ever see on normal highways or within public areas in general policing forms. It has to be fully understood that it is not just a simple place in the railways, it is one thing. Police in the highways is another thing. The complexity of railways is quite something to understand. Can you give any example of the terminology that might cause a problem? If not, you can come back and provide us with that information. It will just track terminology. There are certain things that you have been talking about, the forefoot and the different terminologies that people work on the railways will just give out as normal discussion points. Those kinds of things can lead to a misunderstanding or put officers at risk as well. That is one thing that is an incident that occurs, but what we do not want to do is escalate it any higher than what it is and putting people out on the railways where some inches is 125 mile an hour lines with big trains that do not stop very quickly at all. You are looking at a mile or so for some of the bigger trains to stop. It is a very dangerous environment. Mr Fally, I am sorry to ask you to give one example, which is quite local to me in terms of places on the railways, a place called Wychner in just north of West Midlands. The actual junction of the railways in Wychner, but the village Wychner is 50 miles away. It is quite a distance away. In terms of terminology, it is quite a complex system to get your head around, so that might lead us to questions later about the control centre, because that is some of the areas of concerns that we have. supplementary, John Finnie, Douglas Laws and Liam I want to pick up on the railway policing arrangements in a comment that was made by Mr Curtis. That was the potential for the arrangements to be improved as a result of the change. Indeed, Mr Cooper talked about the extent to which the special system was widespread. That is a question particularly for Mr Lister and Mr Curtis, whose area—as a representative of the Highlands and Islands—I would not ordinarily have put that on the record, but the chief constable of BTP did last week—there are five officers covering that area, five BTP officers. I have been trying to do my sums, but 300 or 400 miles of track. Within that area, there are several hundred Police Scotland officers, dozens of detectives, dogs and all the rest. The potential exists to enhance the policing arrangements, the reality being in many instances that it will not be a BTP officer who attends an incident. Would you agree with that? It does happen. Mutual aid occurs in the police authorities in the UK anyway, which is a requirement under the policing act. However, we know that if we have an incident in certain locations that is a good chance that a Police Scotland person will turn up, an officer will turn up and deal with the incident. That does occur. I concur with that. It is something that happens today. As the forces have become integrated, that integration could assist that particular element of the response. I concur with those statements. Let's not be mistaken. This is an opportunity for more coverage, but we have just gone through some questions and answers in terms of the expertise that these officers will have when they step foot onto a railway environment. That is what is most critical. From a virgin transport point of view, it is an opportunity to get it right, but it is about the right expertise, and I want to try to know what those guys will have. Is it a supplementary to something that has been raised, or can I add you to the list? No, that will be later. I will put you on the list. Douglas and then Liam. Thank you, convener. Can I first of all ask Mr Cooper? You are saying your evidence that you held discussions with the Police Division of Scottish Government back in 2013. Were there moves by the Scottish Government to change BTP in Scotland at that time, and what were the plans? I think that it was a proposition, and they approached us and asked for our views, which we were very happy to give. I think that they were consulting more widely than that at the time, informally, not consulting in the way that happened more recently. We were asked for a view and we gave it from Scottish Government. You said that you sent back a very comprehensive response in October 2013. Would it be fair to say that, at that time, you were not convinced of merging the BTP division within Police Scotland or within a single force, which had only just started earlier on that year? My point is, certainly, that you warned the Government against that move. The views that I expressed at the time when I approached were expressing the view that it seemed like quite a brave step to take, because I don't think that it was policy at the time that it was being considered. The issues have been explained by a number of the people who submitted evidence here, the operational concerns and other issues that surrounded it. It seemed to us that there wasn't a particularly strong case for making a change at the time, and certainly the three benefits that are put forward here as a reason for the policy decision that's been taken weren't something that was being discussed at the time. I think that that's useful to get for the record, because obviously we hear a lot in this committee during this debate that it's because the Smith commission devolved powers to allow the Scottish Government to do this. This is why we're now looking to integrate BTP with in Police Scotland, but it seems that there was a move afoot towards that earlier. Could I perhaps ask you another specific question or your evidence, but I'd appreciate comments from other members? You say at paragraph 15 that, as an operator, it feels right to be concerned that the transfer of part of the BTP to Police Scotland in a period when the force has its own significant challenges to meet presents new risk to real way policing. How do you compare your evidence to the evidence that this committee received from ACC Higgins of Police Scotland, who said that he felt that it was a luxury to have two years to prepare for this? Do you think that it is a luxury that we've got two years to prepare for this, or will you continue to have your concerns about marriage in BTP into Police Scotland? I think that it comes back to the issue about stated intentions and what we really mean by assurance. A significant change like this I would normally expect in business life to be accompanied by a proper impact assessment of what the likely unintended consequences and so on would be. Equally, there's a comment that I know in some of the paperwork that's been shared that suggests that it's just changing cat bags and the sticker on the side of the police vehicle is all that's required to get things going. When we're establishing a new franchise, having been awarded one, which we were in my case back in 2007, there's a four or five months period of mobilisation that involves an awful lot of things that have to be ready for day one when a transfer is made. I haven't seen much evidence in what I've been able to read here, but that sort of mobilisation plan and the issues that are really important to ensure that whenever that day one comes, it's a seamless event don't appear to be there, which is the sort of thing that gives me as an operator some concern, because obviously the subordinate legislation is very important and that's the way things are structured. Of course, a lot of the things that people want to work through in those things are not work through at this stage and therefore must remain kind of stated intentions, which I'm sure are given in good faith and based on experience, but they're not kind of proven at this stage, I think. I would agree with Mr Cooper that clearly it's really important that planning and preparation is put in place to achieve this. Two years is certainly an achievable timeframe for that, but significant work needs to be taking place now in order to ensure that, just as Mr Cooper raises the appropriate planning and mobilisation and risk management is put in place. At the recent meeting that we had with the Minister of Transport Scotland, the BTPP, the Police Authority, there was discussion around the work activities that are taking place and the desire to get the industry involved in many of those work streams. I see the starting process happening for that, but it's at an early stage and it's important that that continues under the industries heavily involved in it. Just to add on to the points that we've made, I think that the key point about what the industry does from a mobilisation viewpoint is a good case point. It's one that the BTPP today are involved in when you move from one operator to another and some of the changes in the relationship that the incoming franchise might have in terms of what goes forward today for Transponic Express to be with a far closer relationship since April last year than we had before that, given how we're working with them. I think that it's that sort of opportunity over a two-year period to make sure that all the planning and all the assessments that we would do during mobilisation in a couple of months can be delivered over two years, but the ultimate imperative test is that when you move to day one, when change happens, as we are remitted to do, the customer and the passenger sees no difference. Everything continues as normal, ultimately, hopefully enhancement, but there's no impact on day-to-day operations and day-to-day security of the railway. Just in regards, a mention of you've got two years to deal with this, that just breaks down to 104 weeks of work. Having worked in projects and various other things, that's not a long piece of time to make sure that you've got a plan in place. As Andrew has mentioned earlier about looking and planning ahead of time, looking, as we've mentioned in a couple of the workshops, if we're operators, we need to do a management of change process, which is looking and reviewing and identifying risks within the process. Looking at dispositions between roles within BTP going into Police Scotland, key actions that need to be considered and understood fully to ensure that one little bit doesn't suddenly get missed, which is a key operation or practice that's done by one officer or a couple of officers that suddenly gets missed has not been important. Failure at that point could be quite dramatic. We all know how that can affect businesses across the country, et cetera, if one item suddenly fails. I would encourage just to remind that two years is not a long piece of time in anybody's business, it changes very quickly. I would encourage anybody that's involved in looking and reviewing this to ensure that they've looked at the risks associated with the transfer, looked at the dispositions between BTP and Police Scotland and ensured that it's fully charted and fully recorded. We're willing to be involved in that process and we've offered our services in that review and ensured that a suitable process is taken forward in regards to this mill. So, hopefully, that gives a bit of an insight. Mr Lister, I wonder if I could come on to your evidence and just to get it on the record what you put in your written submission about a fatality in Carlook station. I think it's useful given some of the discussions that we've had about BTP officers maybe not being first on scene or working alongside Police Scotland. You're saying that your evidence at a fatality was deemed a suicide by BTP officers in 73 minutes and therefore the railway could be reopened, but the conventional Police Scotland force wished to continue investigations and that meant that it was closed for a further 107 minutes. Could you maybe give us more detail in that example? You're correct that there's a detail in relation to that incident and, in essence, because the initial response was from Police Scotland and a different approach was taken in relation to the investigation of the incident itself, it protracted the length of time that the railway was shot. As you're aware, the network, particularly where you're talking about the main lines, has an impact not just in Scotland, but it will transfer all the way through down to London. The overall impact across the railway becomes significant, disrupting many, many passenger journeys and leading to costs to the industry as well as to costs to the wider society. However, in discussions that we have had with Police Scotland and BTP and Transport Scotland, one of the areas that Police Scotland has recognised is the specialism and the expertise that the transport police have in the area and the fact that it is the best practice that could potentially transfer into Police Scotland. Providing that is something that is taken forward and that is delivered, that could be encouraging in terms of delivering that wider benefit, not necessarily just in the railway industry, but it's extremely important for us to ensure that the response is taking that balanced view. I just want to finish on that point of training, but just with this example suicide was the confirmed outcome. Is that correct? Therefore, BTP were correct in their assumption after 73 minutes, but the further delay by Police Scotland resulted in a 760 minute delay to the entire rail network, costing approximately £160,000. We are saying just so for the record that the correct outcome was established earlier by BTP officers. Finally, I ask First of all to yourself about the governance and then the entire panel about training. In your evidence and you mentioned it earlier about the SPA having a dedicated transport person with in their board, would you have serious concerns if they are unable to recruit someone? There are currently two vacancies and they are looking to fill that at the moment. If they cannot fill that vacancy with someone with a transport background or there is any point during the SPA's time that the person with a transport background is unable to attend or unable to be a member of the SPA, what would your concerns be that decisions would be taken potentially that only member with a transport background is not there? Given that the convener will want me to move on, can I ask my final question? We've heard from ACC Higgins and Police Scotland about their training proposals for the new officers coming in and indeed a specialist group and for all 17,000 odd police officers. Have you taken reassurance from the training that has been suggested? I have my own concerns that it's just a couple of weeks added on at the end. Other members think that it's sufficient and I just wonder based on the evidence that you've received and we're seeking further evidence from Police Scotland, are you satisfied that there will be sufficient training for officers, that they will have the sufficient certificates to police a railway, to go on to the railway if required or do you remain concerned about some of the aspects of training that will be required for BTP officers when they merge into Police Scotland? If I answer the first question in relation to the governance piece, the key element is ensuring that as the strategy is developed going forward for Police Scotland, there is a consideration for the railway policing within that strategy. It's not for me to say exactly how that should be achieved and we have suggested that one of those mechanisms would be to have that railway experience on the SPA board. Obviously, the legislation talks about the management forum that will channel the railway input into the board. However, the key element for us is to ensure that going forward there is a serious railway consideration in relation to the governance of Police Scotland, so that it's not just a minor consideration, it's something that features in the overall strategy for Police Scotland. Moving on to your second question around training, the only detail that I've seen on the training so far was the evidence that was given here. As I say, I understand that that is an additional two weeks to the training for all Police Scotland officers should the merger take place. Existing training at the moment is I believe three weeks dedicated training that's provided to the BTP Police officers that gives them both the personal track safety requirements as well as training in railway bylaws and dealing with fatality management, etc. It feels that that's something that could be a benefit in terms of enhancing the overall capability. The most critical thing from the railway perspective is, as was talked about earlier, to ensure that those people who are accessing the railway are doing it following the appropriate procedures and understand the risks that are associated with that. It's not just two to three weeks when they become a new constable when they're learning everything about policing, it's that on-going training so you don't lose that specialist knowledge to terminology. There is a significant risk that if you just take a box to say that they've had this extra three weeks and then they never do anything with railway policing maybe for 20 years and then get called to an incident, they don't have any knowledge at all. What we would be interested to see is the details in relation to what the proposal is, what the plan for retention of skills is, the current arrangements, and it's interesting wide, is that there's a two-year refreshment on that training so that it's not something that you can not practice forever or not be retrained and still retain the competence, so we would want to understand what the proposal was going forward. I think that just to add to David's point there is that continual training needs to be part and parcel of the training programme, it can't be ignored. We as operators and staff who work on that are required to ensure that we've got competent and suitable staff to carry out duties. Having two to three weeks whatever it's going to be of training is a good start but it's a start, it's not a completion of work. It has to take into account how often you're going to be going and using that knowledge. You will get knowledge when it will disappear and it will fade away and you've got to have that continuous training. We do also have probation periods as well for people going into, initiating from getting a PTS, getting other qualifications that will allow you to access the railways, that we don't allow people just to go straight on with a certification that needs to be escorted, that needs to be managed and that needs to gain that knowledge through experience of walking on there with an experienced person. In answer to that, we've seen that there's talk about the training, it needs to be fully understood what that means, it also needs to recognise what the rest of the industry are doing both for track work as railway operators generally, of what we're required to do under the rules of the railways. To go back to your first question which was in regards having a recognised person on the board, I think it is highly important. Otherwise decisions can be made under assumption and assumption can lead you down to an expensive route of failure. You asked three questions, I think that the issue of membership is quite right, it's important that somebody's there and I think it's beholden on us as an industry if we're serious about this to make sure that there are people available, whether they're volunteers from elsewhere or whether the industry produces some names from which the police authority can select, but I think it's our duty to make sure that the representation is there. I think decisions, you're quite right at the operational decisions which might be taken or strategic decisions might be taken by the authority are an important part of it, but the operational decisions at a lower level are both important and they won't be directly influenced by membership on the board which really takes us on to your third point. Our core policing is 10 weeks training, I think that we take them away and three weeks training is given for railway police on the BTP and one can give them personal track safety certification in a couple of days, but a couple of days times 17,000 officers if that was what was being proposed which is how I read it is quite a sum and quite a challenge because you've got to release those officers for that training just as they have for the other things where they need refresher training firearms and all the other things that come with it, so it's quite an obligation taking people away from the cold face as it were for that training, but I think also it's the fact that a dedicated force has people who are gaining experience over time dealing with similar sorts of incident and I think that's the thing where experience is gained knowledge and the sort of approach to policing on the railway which is gained just simply by being dedicated to it all of the time and with colleagues who are as well. You have to have a competence management system who take drivers for trains, we have a competence management system which takes account of the fact that drivers may be driving for six months and not have any sort of incident at all, so we put them through that on simulations and various exams and tests and so on over a period of three years and there's a competence management file which is a requirement on us to make sure that they're fit to operate and safe to do so and have the knowledge and experience and I think a police force as an employer would have or you know the agents of the crown here would have to make sure that they had a competence management system for people they put in harm's way on the railway, you can develop those things but they're not without cost and if you're going to spread it throughout the force which is what was being suggested there you know there's going to be quite a price tag attached because there is simply time the need to release people from their day job to enable them to go through the stages of such a competence management system. David Lister, you talked about preliminary discussions with the Scottish Government and other relevant parties in answer to Douglas Ross and Graham McLeod you also touched on it in answer to Ronan McCai, I just wanted to question whether those discussions with the Scottish Government or other relevant parties had given you a reassurance that the engagement proposed will give you a sufficient voice in setting railway policing priorities and objectives following integration both in terms of mobilisation and going forward if that is the will of Parliament, I just wanted to be absolutely clear on that. As Mr Meikle John indicated that the minister has been generous with his time and there's been four meetings with the industry you know since the middle of last year to talk through the process both pre the legislation being drafted and post the legislation being published or the draft legislation being published and in that it's given us the opportunity to raise any fears or concerns that we may have in terms of the process and enable reassurances to be mentioned in those so in relation to the governance that have been reassurances there in terms of that the governance arrangements will be fully taken into account the industry's views but I guess the point that I was making earlier is in relation to governance the one piece that's not in the legislation is in relation to the SPA and the railway representative on that and that's one area that we would like to see strengthened as it were. Over all you're reassured by the level of engagement. Correct. Okay, thank you, thank you. Liam Farrell followed by Claire and Mary. Thank you, convener. I just want to follow up one of the lines of questions that Douglas Ross had initiated there in terms of the training. I think a separate issue that's been raised with us is the extent of unease within BTP itself and from the witnesses last week I think it emerged that around about 40% of staff in recent staff survey had indicated that they were at least considering whether or not they're future lay within BTP. Back to the point I think Mr Horley you mentioned that this is about the seamlessness with which we transition from what's in place now to what's in place in the future. Does it give rise to some concerns for you if there is such a significant cohort within the existing BTP officers and staff who are at least considering whether or not at the point of transition that's a transition they want to make? Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt. That does concern us and my colleague Graham mentioned earlier about the importance of the police training and their own progression within their force. It's critical for us that it's between London right through to just Scotland itself that we have a seamless force in place and the training is all the same standard that is to date or better and that the officers involved are dedicated and they don't see that their futures are being demised because of a change in their reporting lines. Is there a view across the panellist to whether or not there's a certain amount of critical mass within the BTP at the moment in terms of its expertise across a range of different areas that would need to be retained at least for the foreseeable future in the early stages of that transition to ensure that that was a smooth transition? I think in a way that you make an interesting point because I'm less concerned once mobilised when the machine has gone through about years and one and two after a significant change like this. I think that my concerns would be on years three and four and beyond what really happens because the intentions that everybody has right at the start of these things are always very firm and very well held but of course a lot of other pressures can come to bear and I think my concern would be that having entered in on this venture where do we stand in three, four, five years time because the railways are a long-term business franchises are reasonably lengthy and we really want to be assured that those things will be there in the future. I think the comment I'd make for more than the last 25 years I've been leading railway companies with various numbers of staff. I have about 1,800 people at the moment and when you're dealing with people who work largely as lone workers but as part of a team. The issues around leadership and their belief and how they feel about work and whether they understand the plot, if I can put it that way, is of fundamental importance and I think it will be interesting to see the report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary both in England and Wales and in Scotland to see what their review of British Transport Police is and I believe that they will find that one of the strengths of BTP is leadership and I've known personally the last three chief constables and seen the work that they have done, which has brought the British Transport Police to the position it is at the moment, which is the best I've ever seen in terms of its alignment with the industry. To find that 40 per cent of the offers in Scotland as part of BTP are very concerned about this, given the strength of leadership that I witness, would be a real concern, because those people are well led, understand the plot and are very committed to the job that they do and yet they now have this concern and therefore as an operator who relies on them to provide the service that they're contracted to do, yes I am concerned. Just taking you on to the again a point that I think you made earlier on about a requirement for a greater level of specification in whatever the RPAs begin to look like. Given the two-year time frame that we're looking at for implementation, would you see it as essential to have some of that specific detail mapped out sooner rather than later in the sense that that's the specific details of what we may be in the RPAs will presumably guide the decisions that are taken by SPA and by Scotland at the point and immediately after transfer? I think so. If there's a willingness between two parties to reach agreement then it can easily be on in that timescale, but it's making sure that both parties really understand the position that others have and their concerns so that we can find that meeting of minds. I don't see it's impossible to do that, but it is a greater challenge if you're dealing with an organisation like the British Transport Police where in a sense it's a zero sum game. We know that they look after railways and we run railways, whereas there are going to be many other pressures, some of which are illustrated in the Police 2026 document that I've read through. So Police Scotland is not without its own pressures and it's got to consider those properly as well in fulfilling its duties in Scotland, as it has when it enters into a contract with railway operators for police services in Scotland. What assurances have you had on that? I noticed in earlier evidence that there were some concerns around the way in which the policing agreements operate at the moment in terms of perhaps a lack of clarity around precisely what it is that's being paid for what the costs are of that. You've pointed to the issues that the Police 2026 consultation is trying to grapple with the financial position with Police Scotland is no great secret to anybody. Is there a concern that a combination of that lack of precision at the moment perhaps around what is pay for and cost structures aligned to the financial difficulties that Police Scotland are already in, that one would see an attempt in a sense to use those agreements as a way of bolstering finances in other parts of the organisation? Let me make one small point and give way. It would be very difficult to know whether that's the case. I mean one could say that but I'm not saying that. I think most of the issues that we have with the cost of policing with the BTP at the moment are usually about how we share out the costs between ourselves but we know it's a zero sum game. At an aggregate level we've had the pricing promise on RPI and we've talked to them about whether there are new expansions when territorial policing was set up in a new way when we're deciding to arm part of the British Transport Police Force and so on whether there are additional costs and counter-terrorism as well. So those things are in aggregate. We have a good relationship and a good understanding of how we handle costs. I think most of the thing you refer to actually when we argue about what are the methods of apportioning costs whereas I think it's a separate issue when you're talking about ceding that to a much bigger organisation with its own challenges. My comment would be similar effectively that it's really important to us that we have been given assurances that numbers would be retained that any finance from the industry would be spent on railway policing and not in other areas so it's important that those agreements do give that transparency in terms of ensuring that the costs are shared and known. How robust is that given what you've already said about and it's been acknowledged by ACC Higgins in terms of the training requirement across the force? It's very easy to see a situation where costs that are force-wide can come to be met perhaps not in whole but certainly in significant part by a railway industry and that that training requirement is brought about through the railway policing agreements that Police Scotland is an SPA of signed with yourselves. That's clearly something that would need to be reviewed in detail. If there's a proposal there in terms of costs that look to being a portion to the industry then the industry would want to be able to understand those and ensure that they're comfortable that they are allied to supporting the railway industry. Are there any particular issues around the freight side of things in relation either to that issue around the transfer of staff and officers across or in terms of the way in which the contract may be structured? I think that the comment that you made earlier regards the 40 per cent people who are questioning whether they want to remain in the BTP is a big risk because, as we've all mentioned about the specialism that the BTP retains, if that's 40 per cent of 250 approximate officers that we're going to transfer over into Police Scotland it's a significant loss of skill and that really to me is something that needs to be identified as part and part of this process. Loss of that type of skill set will be wherever they go to that will leave 40 per cent reduction in staffing levels therefore an increase in in required staff and then further training to bring those that level of people back up to the 215 needed to support the BTP specialism that's been identified in as mentioned by a number of police officers and a number of ministers that this is key to retain that number of people as a specialism in Scotland. So our concern is that you know if that's happening now what we're doing to make sure it doesn't happen but also then it just adds to a bill that's ever increasing all the time when we start talking about further training it is another cost to something and somebody has to pay for this at the end of the day and we've got as an industry got to look at this and say well the policing is there and we pay a levy to pay to buy into that that police force and currently it seems to me as though that it's not fully understood how much is it going to cost us at the end of the day. Just just finally I do get an impression from from what you say I mean it is a fairly constructive attitude I think you've taken to the discussions you've had but essentially you need to make this work because have you got anywhere else to go last week we heard from witnesses about a dutch model where they gone down the route of bringing in private providers presumably that isn't something that you think is a realistic proposition in this instance and therefore whatever happens to this legislation must be made to work. I think you're absolutely right I mean one shouldn't form the view that we're not very concerned about any transitional arrangements when this goes forward you know and I've had personal discussions with chief constable we're you know we're really concerned that we need to continue to police in accordance with the police service agreement we have at the moment. BTP has to satisfy that right up till you know 2359 so you know it's a concern now and it's a concern about what those the implications of that sort of situation might be for the future so it's both this user important to us. Various things coming forward but we we can't understate the importance of the people matters in this issue here we represent an industry that went through significant change a couple of decades ago and had a profound impact on people who had built up their careers under British Rail. I think those who are members of the BTP today have got similar sort of issues going through them it's recognised in the figure that you've quoted. There is a an obligation to ensure that those fundamental people issues are addressed and taken into account to to minimise the risk of people leaving the force unnecessarily and I think going forward there's we look in both sides of the borders there's an opportunity for things to to improve in Scotland to then have the force in England and Wales to up their game and improve as well so whilst we're obviously looking to protect what we have today there's ways that we can use contracts and relationships to to have a greater overall effect and improve efficiency and perhaps even lower costs. At the moment as already stated you have a commercial relationship with British Transport Police and at the moment there's a certain amount that you pay to British Transport Police and you know what you get in return for that. Under the new proposed system can you say about how you anticipate those costs being split between what you'll pay to the British Transport Police and what you'll pay to Police Scotland as they're going to be as simple as a percentage amount that's taken off or Andrew Cooper talked about sometimes the difficulty of the operators deciding what the share is that goes into British Transport Police is that going to be challenging in a Scottish context looking at how operators what share of their operations is carried out in Scotland so how much of a challenge is dividing the existing costs going to be and do you anticipate it being a more expensive model the one that's being brought forward? In two stages the Transport Police I think have advised the overheads and the direct costs associated with D division so there's no dispute I think about what costs are spent by British Transport Police for policing in Scotland at the moment and under the Smith commission's review we we shouldn't see any worsement on that position as a result of any change so I think we know what the start position is and those are the funds available to Police Scotland and I agree we'll have a discussion about the individual railway policing agreements as they're to be called in Scotland about you know how much that is how that is shared between operators in Scotland. I mean I accept what you've said but it would seem reasonable to anticipate that if you're setting up a if you're splitting off at the moment a system that will have savings and cost efficiencies built within it and you're splitting it into two you would think the new system under Police Scotland would would be more expensive we've talked about concerns of our capacity and specialism in these kind of areas maybe the need for additional training concerns about retidals all this would suggest that at least be some initial higher costs if not ongoing higher costs. I think it's every reason to believe you're right we kind of know what the start position is and it will be really for Police Scotland to assess having taken on those responsibilities you know what the costs are to it I think the concern for other operators they're not cross-border operators in the UK is that there are overheads which are covered by policing in Scotland which are attributed to the BTPA so that's that's an issue that's got to be tackled because there are overheads and obviously Police Scotland will no doubt allocate some of its overheads to roll replacing in the future in Scotland but equally we've got operators in England who are left without cover from Scotland as it were so somebody's got to work out how that happens I think I said in my note there's the funding to achieve devolution then there's the one-off cost of implementing it and then there's the ongoing costs and we need to make sure those transitional issues are picked up it really is a you know an issue for discussion with Police Scotland as to whether they'll be able to you know meet the requirements that the industry places upon you know railway policing at the moment generally from the funds that come their way I mean there are statements made in some of the evidence I've read that they believe there'll be some economies of scale but equally I read in some of the strategy documents that Police Scotland's already got its own challenges so it's interesting to consider you know how they will go to provide both an efficient and an effective service to the railway that would be undoubtedly to be a challenge as it always is. Does anybody else want to comment on the budgets or the anticipated costs of the new system? I think one thing I agree it's probably going to cost money like any change it will it does reflect some benefits in the long term but those benefits are quite a way out to actually see that benefit but one thing I would like to see is some transparency during the costing models being developed to fully understand where the costing is going to and what it's going to be doing for if there's additional cost coming in we need to be clear and understanding why that's come in so we can see and reference it for the future and obviously to make sure that the initial payment doesn't then suddenly start ramping up very quickly as well to have that clarity and understanding. My colleagues have said to my left we expect transparency in the contract that we have with our franchise that the funding is the funding and that's the funding that's available so that's not the stunning Scottish Police's own budgetary constraints this is the proof will be in the pudding I guess is in the the rpa's that are set up and the board that the railway or transport representative will sit on in terms of directing and allocating how funding is spent just picking up on a point that was made earlier about something that's quite simple on the railway but you know takes two days of trains a personal truck safety card if as I read it that each member of the officers is going to have a personal truck safety card it's going to be a quite an expensive expensive outlay so it would be very critical in terms of where our funding goes and what it's focused on so the proof as I say will be in the pudding in terms of the the board that will be set up and one of our transport members sitting on that and directing funding. I'd like to say again obviously commercially it is very important for the rail operators and in essence from a cost perspective there's two areas that potentially impact us one is any transitional project costs in making this happen and the rdg made the industry position clear that you know the industry isn't expecting to be picking up costs associated with the project that is delivering this change and then there's the ongoing cost once the change has occurred and on that area you know it's encouraging to hear some evidence coming forward from the overall proposals and that efficiencies should be able to deliver and that's one of the things that providing we can continue to deliver the safe and efficient service that we have today from btp and efficiencies can be delivered then you know that that would be received positively by by the industry so sorry that you said there was clarity around set up costs that you'd made it clear you didn't know what I'm saying is that there was evidence submitted by the rdg that indicated that the industry's position was that the set the project costs associated with this was something that the industry didn't believe it should be borrowing at neither in england Wales or in Scotland so that's not being clarified or agreed yet or as far as you I haven't heard detail on that yet okay that's helpful thank you mr harley yeah the output of my colleagues at david says from rdg is expecting around my so that'll be published in terms of its findings this was an area where rdg did express quite a lot of concern lack of detail number of staff to be deployed level of performance and the point being made that you really do need some advanced notice of this you need some certainty to be able to budget so can you comment further on that also new contracts and being negotiated between england Wales and scotland is there an aspect of concern in that specific area as well service agreement we have at the moment has got a three month a sorry three year notice period on it which allows us to to take those things into our medium-term financial plans and I imagine that that will be activated so it does give us time to sort of put that into into process and I think that that's the way we would handle it I mean the transitional costs as my colleague has mentioned are a concern because the transport police has no funding for it that I'm aware of in the discussions I've had on the police and security committee and certainly we don't as an operator it's something that's come to us rather than was been part of our medium-term plan and in your submission you say that there has to be a really good notice period given in advance for new contracts particularly I'm quoting given notice period the tenant uncertainties proposal is unattractive to those with clear obligations conversion responsibilities that aspect of your evidence yeah I mean it's my view and no doubt will take legal advice on it that the change that's being proposed there is sufficiently significant for notice to be given on the police service agreement that we hold with btp I think there are there issues for other operators that are not cross-border operators are affected financially but not operationally and who won't require a second row of policing agreement with least Scotland maybe a slightly different situation for them but it'd be freely for them to comment when they're faced with that challenge tiny question and it's a yes no answer from one person I think when a territorial force attends an incident rather than btp is there any charge from the territorial force I'm getting shaking heads right we can move on can you thank you no my first question was actually falling on from clear baker's point in which she'd asked there and it really was about the concerns that were mentioned about the potential for increased costs if you've had any discussions preliminary discussions about that either with the government or but I take it from your previous answers that that hasn't been the case or you're not aware of that being being discussed at all no okay well following on from that then it's about the submission from the rail delivery group and you've talked already about how some of the the main issues have been around funding for the different services provided how it's allocated but are there any other issues about the current psa other than that or any other problems I mean the rail delivery group that's what they talked about and saying that the lack of any detailed description of the service to be provided to the operator by the supplier without being flippant I think you know it's always possible to improve the details in a contract many of the ones we hold with all sorts of bodies what I would say is that because we're talking about a supplier that simply supplies the rail industry for the most part they have one or two other small contracts the best contracts are the ones you don't take out of the cupboard and the relationship that we have and the alignment of objectives and the discussions that we have at things like rdgs policing and security committee which involves btp as well are such that you know if I had to refer to the contract other than that budget time when clearly everyone's under pressure so we have a discussion about and hence the pricing promise which I think has has eased some of that in recent years where we've had a long term commitment to keep within rpi which the btp has done despite some pressures on them it does make it easier to leave the contract in the cupboard this is not some short term relationship you know it predates 2003 in terms of relationships but the position we've had I think over the last 15 years has been really quite exceptional and particularly under the current leadership we really are in an extremely strong position with an alignment of objectives that's stronger than I've ever seen in my railway career so if I had really to get the contract out of the cupboard I would really be quite concerned because I really do think that the working relationship is so strong and the financial commitments are so strong and the operational links work so well and you have to remember that my staff are really the eyes and ears and the extended police force and they know that because I've been telling them it for years that you know they provide a lot of the intelligence which enables the police to work efficiently and effectively so you know it's a very very strong working relationship with a body that knows that you know its future depends on on that relationship so yes you can always improve contracts and you can always pin people down but the question is is that really the relationship you want and in the mature one which I think is the one I've described I'm less concerned than I am entering in with a new supplier who's got other pressures as well. Did anyone else like to comment on that? I think as any contract as well as Andrew's alluded to it's the best left in the cupboard if you can operate that way it's only when things start to go wrong do we then need to retouch certain things the you know the concern I would have as well is we'll still need to maintain a contract with England and Wales BTP but what we need to ensure is the consistency of approaches still maintained regardless what country or what part of the UK we're sitting that we get a good value for money service that provides what we understand as a BTP service that if we have a problem on the network then it's dealt with in a professional manner regardless of whether it's England Wales or whether it's Scotland and that's something that we need to be consistent with because like insurance policies I should say you can tick every box you want but there's always a little writing at the bottom said it excludes this so we need to make sure that it doesn't exclude anything. Excuse me the comments from Mr Cooper and Mr Curtis there and I think the rdg note does capture the key elements in relation to the development needed in the current PSAs or railway policing agreements and I would concur that you want to have a positive relationship so the contract is less of an issue there. One of the areas that we are looking to enhance and develop is ensure that if there are changes occurring so either costs go up or costs go down then there's getting together again to review what the impact of that and what changes can be made so that there's no surprises that occur 12 months down the line etc so that's the key one of the key elements for us. We've made comments on our submissions I mean that the baseline would be that costs don't rise in Scotland and costs don't rise in England and Wales but there has to be the process to be gone through I think as the other colleagues have said I think it would be a failure of this process if we suddenly in Scotland had different parts of the industry referring to contracts to go forward and it should just work in practice. We are fundamentally eager to see that relationship with the BTP south of the border because it will be that relationship that delivers the continuity across England, Wales and Scotland as well for all. I just echo my colleagues the key words our transparency consistency and a fair allocation of costs so it seems to be a common trend. Okay thank you very much for that. Are there any, I mean I completely understand what you're saying and what you would like to see but are there any other specific improvements that you think there could be or that you would like to see as part of any new agreement? Move to efficiency. We did talk earlier on about targets and the way that things are worked. We're not for a moment looking at competition being introduced here but to have standards and agreements in Scotland and then to have comparative neighbouring standards in England and Wales. We're two operators and Mr Curtis as well operating over the west coast and the east coast in and out of Scotland. There's the opportunity for standards across the entire network to be delivered and operationally that is imperative for passengers in improving their overall experience of the railway whether it's journeys in Scotland only or whether it's using either of the Anglo-Scottish routes to make rail a more attractive mode to use rather than private car, flight or any other choice. I said it earlier. We look at it as an opportunity and cross-fertilisation in terms of best practice. If the merge does happen, let's get it right, involve us from the outset, which the minister has kind of done and spent quite a bit of time with us, but there's the opportunity to get it right. If any of us have to get the contract out, we've all failed in all honesty. The first is a supplementary. I wanted to get in earlier because a number of you, when you were answering the question about training, stated that the cost and the time involved to put everyone through the PTSD process and that has to be renewed, etc. What would your reaction be if Police Scotland said they're not going to do that? So you would expect when we get information back from ACC Higgins that every police officer will get this training and that will be continually upgraded and upkept, etc. That's useful to get on record. I also wanted then to move on in terms of how BTP works on the trains. We've heard a lot about track policing on the trains, etc. What are your concerns or what benefits do you think there may be if you think there are any to policing within the station environment and how much consideration do you give to that? For example, there may be a difference. We now have with a single BTP force across the United Kingdom the use of tasers in Scotland, which are used by all BTP officers, whereas if you are to use a taser as a Police Scotland officer, you must be firearms-trained. Would you have concerns if we have a different operating model for policing around a transport network in Scotland where all officers couldn't routinely use tasers but it's just south of the border the BTP officers could? That's really something you need to address to the British Transport Police and Police Scotland. It's an operational matter for them. We take guidance for them about the approach that they feel necessary to deal with the risks that exist to the railway and its passengers and staff. Any of you that I expressed is not really one that is valid, so we take advice from them on these professional issues. They're the ones that assess the risk and we respond to that. Ensuring optimum security within the station where your clients come in and out must presumably be an important issue for you as well. Absolutely indeed. The role that BTP play is really important in providing reassurance to our staff and the travelling public. It's critical for us that that is maintained as it goes forward. We do want to ensure that they have the appropriate means to be dealing with the threats that they're faced with but that the police are the experts in determining what those meet those appropriate means are. There are some potential opportunities in terms of enhancement for perhaps some of our less central belt larger stations where the wider Police Scotland team can provide some support for stations etc to provide that reassurance for staff and travelling public responding to concerns or incidents earlier, so that's one potential opportunity. Although that is happening just now presumably as well. I mean there's not routinely BTP officers at Elgin train station but I have seen the police there. I've called the police ahead because of an incident on a train and they met the people there, so there is that working relationship already happening. Absolutely, but being part of one force is something that can strengthen that particular element. There is the risk that there could be abstraction of police officers from the police stations at the railway to respond to an incident. That's one area that we would want to make sure that it was monitoring to ensure that the railway policing is there for railway policing and not routinely abstracted for other areas, so that's one area that we'd want to ensure is monitored. In terms of our operation, we serve quite a large carnivations on our network, Manchester, Piccadilly, Edinburgh, Scotland and London, and I think a lot of it is the key word again, reassurance. A question that you asked certainly needs to be directed to the BTP, but it's about mitigation and visibility and that forms part of the reassurance in our stations. We take guidance off the BTP, the forces and the measures that they would like to use, but it augers back down to the part of the relation that we've got in terms of reassurance to the passengers, to the staff and the mitigation of events that happen on stations and trains as well. I was just going to ask about the control and command element, the concerns that they were raised by BTP, even BTPA, and particularly given some of the IT problems that we have within Police Scotland at the moment and continuing problems, what are your overall thoughts at the moment about that element of any potential murder? It's basically fully understood and agreed to, and systems are going to be relied upon they to be robust and suitable to actually fulfil the need for command and control. Within the command and control setup, it's quite clear what, within people's emergency and business continue plans, how that would work. Police are experts at that, they lead on that subject matter. We just need to ensure that when they need to invoke something, it is actually suitable and practical to actually achieve what the systems have got and the number of police that they can draw up on to deal with any incident that needs the command and control structure to be in place at any given time and location in the UK. Can I ask in response to that at a time when Audit Scotland is raising significant concerns about the failed I6 project? When the Scottish Government has overseen a number of questionable IT processes across the board, whether it is Police Scotland, whether it is in the NHS, whether it is in the CAP agriculture sector, some of the SNP members don't like you saying this on the record, but there is a concern and it's a palpable concern in communities that there are issues about implementing ICT systems within Scotland. Is it a concern for you as operators where you have a good working system that you will be immersed into a system that is currently in outfit for purpose? The point about command and control is essential. A couple of times this morning, people have talked about the response currently of Police Scotland to a railway incident. That is not going to change in the future. A ground level across the United Kingdom Home Department forces, Police Scotland responds to incidents, as indeed do the British Transport Police when they happen to be in the vicinity when there is an issue off of the railway. At a working level, there is actually not any change. It is the command and control structure. We know that because a Home Department force officer gets there and is not quite dealing with the issue in the way that we might intend. It is because there is a control from the BTP with a sergeant or an inspector there to take control of the situation and provide advice and so on, which is something from a dedicated railway control. At the moment, the BTP has two, one that deals with London and the South East for obvious reasons, and the other in Birmingham deals with the rest of the country. As it happens, it is just across the road from my team. Whilst they are looking after vehicles and policemen and so on, we are looking after trains and passengers and so on, but it is a very close map. When my staff call for assistance and it goes through to BTP, there is a single control room where they know what is going on and they respond accordingly if they need to call on the services of Home Department forces, they do that. That is very, very clear and it gives confidence to people in the front line that they know how this arrangement works and to our control team as well. We need to make sure that that is replicated. IT and all the things that support that are very important indeed. All I can say is that things work okay as we are at the moment. There may be challenges elsewhere. I think that my personal concern is that my understanding at the moment is that Police Scotland, despite the merger, has still got four control offices that will come down to three. I wonder what will happen when my staff are calling for assistance, how we will work out, whether it is Glasgow, Edinburgh, Motherwell, will somebody take the lead, will they then pass the message on? It seems a little unclear at the moment, but it might well be at this stage because we have not gone into that level of detail, but if you stand back and look at it and say, there are three control offices for Scotland at the moment and one for the rest of our operations in England and Wales, one can see that it does not look as straightforward at the moment as it might do when things settle down. We also have eight legacy forces that do not even speak to each other at the moment, and I think that that was a point that was raised by some of the BTP officials that were here. Is there a follow-on to the jurisdictional matters, lack of explicit provision in the legislation, which would provide clarity on where specific powers lay? Is that something, Mr Harley, did you want to add something to the line of questioning? I just want to go back to the control centre. That is a key concern for us and not just my members of staff that pick up their telephone to call for a member of support from an officer, but also for staff on our services that would help BTP to publicise as a 6106 number that a passenger can call for assistance. That gives us concerns about where that call goes to, which control centre and how it will be managed. I have equal concerns that my colleague Andy Cooper has raised. Likewise, I sit in an office in Birmingham just across the road from the British Transport Police control centre in Birmingham, and we are very closely mapped. I think that that was a good analogy. Mr Luster? Sorry, if I can just add to that point clearly, control is a critical element for us all. It is something that we have raised to ensure that the workstream that looks at that particular area is dealing with any risks. Training for the control staff in railway matters is another aspect that really needs to ensure that it is considered. As well as we have talked a bit about the ethos that the British Transport Police have in responding to incidents, etc. Again, that ethos needs to be understood by control who are directing the control of information around incidents to ensure that what might be deemed as a low-level crime in the Home Office forces but could be extremely disruptive or cause-coins for our staff or travelling publics in ensuring that it is understood the importance that particular crimes can be in the rail industry. There are many of us who are concerned that the constant talking down of Police Scotland, what we heard from ACC Higgins and indeed from the chief constable on two occasions, and Mr McBride, the senior police officer in Scotland, was that there are very good on-going relationships between Police Scotland and the BTP in Scotland. Of course, the situation elsewhere in the UK is that there will be 44 relationships, because you have 43 Home Forces, and you would move from a situation to only having one control in Scotland. I wanted to particularly pick up on the threat, because we have heard both from Police Scotland and from the BTP. The transport network is a key component of the infrastructure of the country, and accordingly, it is a terrorist threat. The question is alluded to about taser deployment, and that was discussed with all the political parties in here before it took place. That was a discussion that took place with, presumably, yourselves. The threat level is that there are on-going discussions with the rail operating companies. Am I correct? When a strategic change, like the implementation of an armed capability and the deployment of tasers, we are consulted on it, and we were. Thanks, panel. Apologies for being a wee bit later today. We would be glad to know, particularly David Llyster, that ScotRail was fine on my line, but it was a road network that ground a halt with the snow in the west. I will keep it brief, and a couple of points will keep it quite brief. I heard a few people mention opportunities, and I wonder if somebody would like to expand on what those opportunities could be here. We are talking about a Scotland specific situation. How do you think that you could get involved in that? I refer to an opportunity to, A, build further relationships and cross-fertilisation of training, so best practice. The force is a BTP force, or the rail division force, wherever it looks like. It is going to be further enhanced, while the best practice is shared with a current BTP that resides in England and Wales. When I say opportunity, it is an opportunity to get it right and get the new structure right, should it be passed, to work with us. That was covered in earlier evidence. We did look at some of the positives. Is there anything that you think has not been covered, Fulton, that you want to ask? No, I am okay then. Can I thank you all very much for attending today and for very worthwhile evidence? I suspend briefly to allow for a change of witness. I welcome our next witness on the railway policing Scotland bill, Dan Moor, deputy director, rail markets strategy, UK department of transport. I have questions from the member's place. Good morning, Mr Moor. If you could give us a general update on the work of the JPB and what issues have been discussed at meetings so far, where are we with it at the moment? No, I am very happy to do so. First of all, I can say a very substantial thank you for the invitation today. We do think that this is a really important programme. I think that you have heard a lot this morning about the value of the British Transport Police and we are very committed to ensuring an orderly, insensible transfer should the Scottish Parliament decide to go ahead with the legislation before it. Just turning to the JPB in particular, it may be helpful to say one or two words about the JPB and then just give you a general update as to where we are. The JPB is very much a manifestation of how important it is to us that this process is managed in an orderly way. What we are trying to do is to work in genuine partnership and collaboration with the Scottish Government, but also with a range of different parties such as the authorities and the forces, just to have a fairly open dialogue at the joint programme board. What we have tried to do through that is to make sure that a range of issues are raised on an ongoing basis. One choice that we made quite early in the process was that quite a lot of the JPB's work would be essentially affected through a number of individual work streams, which cover a full range of transition issues, ranging from the really important people questions to the assets and liabilities to the financial questions. They have been up and running now for some time. Where we are at the moment is actually that the JPB has met on seven or eight occasions now, so it is a fairly advanced process. It is absolutely fair to say that quite a lot of the initial meetings were on getting things set up and on legislative questions, particularly as the Scotland Bill was becoming an act in the UK Parliament. The critical question now for the JPB is across all of those work streams that I have mentioned, and I am very happy to talk in more detail about any of them, that we have fully flushed out all of the issues that we can plan and identify them in the right sort of way. I would really want to emphasise that we do see this as a very complicated and difficult challenge to make it work in the right sort of way. What we have tried to do is to make sure that, certainly by the next joint programme board, which was meeting in a week's time, we have tried to identify all of the issues across the various work streams. It may be helpful that I just give you an example of one of those particular areas as an illustration of where we are. When it comes to the critical question of staff, and I cannot emphasise enough how critical it has been for us to understand the implications for both officers and staff of this move, what we have been doing over the last couple of months is making sure that we fully understand the range of issues, whether they be the important pension issues, the terms issues, and seeking professional advice from the government actuaries department, but also having broader discussions so that we fully understand all of the issues. My sense is that, by trying to get to the bottom of what the issues are, that the next year is essentially about fully resolving those issues, so we have a clear set of answers for staff as soon as we possibly can. I am very happy to say a little bit more about each individual strand, but I think that I am trying to give you a flavour of that, where I think that we are at the moment is issue identification and trying to make sure that we have a full plan to address those issues. There is still a lot of work to do to manage this process in the right way. Just on that, can you give us an idea of how timescale, how it is working and also has it been sort of harmonious so far, would you say? I am not sure that the range is always between the UK and the Scottish Government so it is harmonious, but I think that this has been a highly harmonious and a highly collaborative process, and I think that that has been the case from day one. I think that both the discussions that we have had over the course of the last 16 months have seen us having very open conversations. One of our basic rules for the joint programme board is that this is not a talking shop, it is not something where we get together and say how great the programme is. If there are problems with the programme or issues with the programme, we discuss them, we discuss them frankly. I think that that spirit of frankness and openness has been incredibly important. My sense at the moment is that it is a genuine joint effort to try to understand and resolve issues. That clearly does not come at the cost. We are very much recognised that we have different perspectives or different fundamental interests. The United Kingdom Government's interests will always be substantially on ensuring that the cross border operations are managed in the right way to ensure that if the Scottish Parliament proceeds to pass the bill into an act that there is an effective protection for the interests of England and Wales after the transition has occurred, where clearly the focus of Scottish ministers will necessarily be on ensuring that the service works in the right way in Scotland as well as in the cross-border areas. However, my strong sense is that it has been a highly collaborative and highly co-ordinated process to this point. You mentioned terms and conditions, and I presume that that would come under a workforce project rather than pension work stream. The fact of the matter is that we do not think to be able to reply, but at this point in time, the workforce has no idea just exactly what their terms and conditions will be. How much of a priority is this going to be? What kind of time-stale can you give us an assurance that this will be resolved? Absolutely. I can emphasise that it is an absolute priority, and you are entirely right with the two-piece position that we are now comfortable with, that the COSUP, the Cabinet Office for Statement of Practice, has an appropriate means to effect an orderly transfer process. We are also very conscious of the triple lock guarantee that has been given by the Scottish Government in this area. My strong sense on this one, convener, is that a really important milestone for this project is the introduction of secondary legislation to the UK Parliament later in the year, whereby quite a number of the transitional questions will have to be properly resolved by that point. My sense is that if we have not been in a position to give a substantially greater level of assurance as we get into the late summer, we are going to have some challenges. However, I do think that it is really important for me, and I would stress that it is incredibly important for the Scottish Government to be in the position to provide, as, ultimately, the employer, if the Scottish Parliament passes the bill, to be able to provide that sort of reassurance as soon as practically possible. We do think that the triple lock guarantee is a very good first step in that sort of area. By the time we reach the end of our stage 1 process, which is likely to be early May, we still will not really have a definitive idea of exactly what the terms and conditions will be, and neither will the workforce. I think that these are complex issues, to be sure, and I think that it is absolutely the case that it will take us a bit of time to properly work through them in the right sort of way. My sense at the moment is that what we are trying to do, and particularly what the Scottish Government is trying to do, is to give as much assurance as possible at this point. However, I think that there will still be issues that we need to work through over the summer period as well. Oliver Mundell, I was interested, obviously, in my constituencies right on the border. I wondered how much the joint programme board had focused on that section of railway, particularly on the west coast mainline between Carlyle and Lockerbie, and whether there had been any detailed discussions around how that section of the network would be managed? There has been quite a lot of discussion in relation to cross-border questions more generally, so both on the east and west coast mainlines. I think that it is fair to say that one of the strongest interests of the UK Government in this particular process, which has been manifested in the discussions with the joint programme board, is that there is a seamless and effective process of cross-border policing. There is an individual work strand on this question set up as part of the joint programme board. It is an operational based work strand, which is led by Police Scotland and the British Transport Police, and it is trying to get to brass tax on the cross-border arrangements. It can come up in a number of different ways, so it could be what is the nature of the operational relationships that we need to see, what are the agreements that we need to see in place to ensure cross-border policing, but also one of the important mechanisms for affecting devolution will be statutory instruments, which effectively set out some of the jurisdictional questions at a later point in the process. We have been thinking very carefully about how those statutory instruments should be framed, but the guiding principle that we have been trying to work to is effective and seamless cross-border policing. That is an ambition that the Scottish Government has expressed on a number of occasions. We are moving in the right direction. To give you reassurance, it is of substantial importance both to the joint programme board and to both ministers at the Scotland Office and the Department for Transport. Ben Macpherson following on in the vein of questioning from the convener around terms and conditions, but first stating how encouraging it is to see that the enthusiasm for partnership and collaborative work that you have expressed in your initial statements should be noted and commended. However, I wanted to come on to the issue of pensions that you mentioned in the opening statement. I was just wondering if you could illuminate perhaps on where things are at with pensions, what the different strands of discussion are, whether it is about continuing openness for members to maintain the membership of their current scheme or opening membership to other schemes or creation of a new scheme. Is there a line of thought that is being progressed or are all options still being explored? I would say that it is a really important area. Again, as the convener has mentioned, there is a work strand on pensions. The short answer is that a number of options are still open at this stage, both in terms of thinking about the implications of remaining within current arrangements or thinking about future arrangements. We do so in the context of a very clear position, as this has been one of the three aspects of the triple lock that the Scottish Government has talked about. However, what we are absolutely doing at this stage is making sure that we fully understand the implications, both for the staff but also as you would expect, for the finances of any sort of transfer arrangement. All options are in the table, but I cannot emphasise enough when we have been talking about those issues. Money clearly is important. Public financing is clearly important. You would not expect me to say anything else, but providing the right approach to the appropriate transfer of the staff has been an important aspect. You heard that very clearly from the chief constable when he was before you a couple of weeks ago. That has been a really important thing that the BTP and the BTP are continually bringing to the table. I apologise. That is a somewhat woolly answer. No, it is helpful to get an indication of where things are at right now. Considering different arrangements, from my own perspective, is an appropriate course of action, given that there will be individuals who will have pension conditions at the moment that they will hope to maintain and look to maintain. It is good that that is being progressed. Has it been taken into account if this is not resolved and there is still a question mark? People may just walk with their feet, rather than wait to see if the uncertainty is going to be a resolved advantage or not. That is an absolutely fair point. When we are managing risks as part of the joint programme board, the risk of effectively people leaving what is a highly specialist, highly important organisation is absolutely there. We are trying to provide as much certainty as soon as possible, given that we are taking into account the complexity of the situation. We are also trying to work with the BTP and provider in ensuring that as much certainty is provided and as much clear messaging is provided as soon as possible. To give you some reassurance, convener, when we look at the risks that we are trying to manage in relation to this particular project, that question about loss of expertise is very much at the top of that list. Liam, please. Just on that point, you have outlined the efforts that have been made to address the concerns that have been raised about terms and conditions around the point of transfer. Similarly, there will be concerns in the doubt within Police Scotland going through its own consultation on how that force will look going forward. How are you balancing the risk of loss of expertise, of officers and staff, therefore expertise, when people are concerned about their own terms and conditions and how that might be affected by the transfer? With the risk that Police Scotland, to which the BTP will be folded, will have its own anxieties if officers and staff are coming into that organisation on what has been formed better in terms of conditions and arrangements than those in the existing force. That is a very fair point. It is one of the points that we are trying to understand as part of the work. I want to communicate to the committee that, although we have been meeting for some time and have been a considerable amount of work, we recognise that this is the stage at which some of those really difficult and complex issues need to be fully worked through. Trying to understand the implications for individuals and the sort of circumstances that they would go into is absolutely an important part of the project as we go on. My strong sense is that a lot of these issues will depend on the approach that the Scottish Government ultimately takes to questions of pensions and other things, which is why we have been encouraged by the triple lock position and the reassurances that you heard from Mr Higgins a couple of weeks ago. That is essentially an answer that says that this is a significant work in progress, but that is something that we are very aware of. Is that discussion approaching it from the perspective that there are individuals who are transferring and it is their interests that we need to be focused on, but those who come up in their wake, so to speak, those who are being recruited or maybe recruited in the coming years, will have to be taken on in terms and conditions that are more reflective of what exists at the moment within Police Scotland. What is the strategy around handling those who are currently in the service and those who presumably will be being recruited over there? Absolutely, it is fair to say that our focus at the moment is very much providing reassurance and providing as much clarity for those who are currently in the service as we possibly can. My sense is that what we have to be clear about over the course of the next several months is how we see the workforce strategy going forward. Again, Mr Higgins was able to give some reassurance on that a couple of weeks ago, but that, for me, is one of the most important aspects of the workforce workstream that we set up as part of the joint programme board to get under those issues and provide as much certainty as we possibly can. I think that you have fairly outlined the fact that a lot of the detail around that will be taken forward in secondary legislation. That is probably an understandable approach, but there will be concerns that whatever is agreed in broad terms once you drill that down into secondary legislation may have either some unintended or unexpected consequences. What level of assurance can you give the consultation around the secondary instruments that will be sufficient to allow any of those concerns to be teased out, rather than the situation in which, in this Parliament, we have seen on many occasions where, in a sense, you end up with a piece of secondary legislation where, effectively, you are given a take it or leave it option, which does not necessarily do justice to the complexity of the issues. I understand that. I think that there has to be a collaborative process over the next six months. One of the things that we have tried to do with each of the individual work streams is to establish a clear lead. On workforce questions, the British Transport Police Authority is the employer that acts as the clear lead on that sort of area, but the BTP is also very, very involved. We would envisage not just further conversations but an active process of dialogue with the British Transport Police Federation and others over the course of the next several months as we are trying to work some of those questions out. I am conscious that it was quite illuminating from the panel this morning the comments that were already made about the level of dialogue that has been with Scottish ministers. I am very conscious that a number of those decisions will ultimately be questions for Scottish ministers. My sense is that we are moving in a fairly collaborative and open sort of way. However, my sense is that we will also need to uptick the engagement over the next couple of months, both with the operators but also with staff representatives, to make sure that we fully understand exactly the point that Mr McArthur is making about the unintended consequences and how it works out in the detail. I have been certainly in circumstances that you have described as secondary legislation, which does not quite work out in the way that we would have wanted it to. I am very committed to making sure that over the next several months that this is a collaborative process with the representatives that are most directly impacted. To some extent, this was a really big choice from us at the start of the joint programme. We had two basic choices. We could have effectively tried to put in place a highly centralised project structure with a very substantial project management unit and a project management core. What we have tried to do is, however, by using these work streams to make sure that we are using both the experts, the day-to-day experts, those who understand all of these issues, to be actively taking forward the work, but also those who are closest to the operators, closest to the staff so that they are able to identify issues, which is a central board that we may not immediately identify. I would like to hope that the reassurance of the approach that we are trying to take in this area has been as close as possible to those who know best about these questions, ultimately will result in exactly those issues being properly picked up. However, I cannot emphasise enough—I really cannot emphasise enough—in the discussions in the board, the real importance of understanding, the practical staffing impacts. That is really very important to us. Could I be clear that, for example, there would be actual formal consultation with people like the Law Society of Scotland, who may have very definite views on the structure? One point that I would make is that some of the formal consultative process, I am always wary of speaking directly for the Scottish Government on this. There will be a number of Scottish Government issues. Ultimately, quite a lot of this process must be consistent with the devolution process and must be driven by decisions made by yourselves and by the Scottish Government. I do not want to speak too much about their process. In terms of the statutory instrument process, there are a couple of statutory instruments that we would effectively look to effect transfer through. I do not know if that is the time to get into some of that detail, but there are two statutory instruments that we would look to effect the transfer through a section 90 order, which would be effectively transferring assets and liabilities, which would be subject to scrutiny of this Parliament, as well as the United Kingdom Parliament and the section 104 order, which would cover a range of jurisdictional, consequential issues. I would absolutely see that being the process of engagement and discussion. We have not, at this stage, established exactly the formal public consultation process that we would follow, but I cannot emphasise enough that the premium that we place on engagement and the premium that we have placed on engagement throughout the joint programme board process from its first day is one of our guiding principles. I would absolutely not want anybody to come to this committee in two years' time on a question that the United Kingdom Government has as a matter of its responsibility and say that the United Kingdom Government has not given us an opportunity to be heard. I think that that is what we are trying to secure as part of this process. I appreciate that. Perhaps taking that a little bit further, you may take on board that dialogue and discussions behind closed doors are one thing, but a formal consultation process gives the opportunity for responses to be seen, for transparency to be quite clear and accountability to follow. I hope that you take that on board. I will certainly take that away and I very much agree with the spirit of that, but let me take it away. Can we move on to John Finnie, followed by Claire Baker? Good morning, Mr Moreham. Thank you for evidence. Two points that I would like to raise within it are just on that last one of engagement. I do not know if you heard Mr Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation's evidence last week. If it was not him who specifically said this, I think that Mr Higgins would have alluded to it. That is already within Police Scotland that there are a range of terms and conditions, not least regarding issues such as formally housing allowance and pensions. That would be another complication thrown into the mix. Is there engagement with the Scottish Police Federation by your board at all? At this stage, there has not been a strong process of engagement. There absolutely will have to be as part of this process going on. We have identified essentially a group of parties that we have brought in the board in the last couple of months to include the forces. We would envisage a greater level of engagement with the Scottish Police Federation and the Police and Transport Federation throughout from now on, but I would absolutely emphasise that this is something that Scottish Government colleagues may be able to say more that, next week, there has been a very extensive set of discussions with Scottish Government colleagues and the Scottish Police Federation and other representative organisations to try to understand their interests. I am very conscious that quite a lot of the practical day-to-day decisions will ultimately be decisions for the Scottish Government. In many respects, quite a lot of the consultation in this area must follow that sort of decision-making tree, as it were. Where is the Scottish Parliament to adopt the legislation? I have a question about operational issues. There are long-standing conventions between Dumfries and Galloway as it would have been in Cumbria, Lothra and Borders and Northumbria. Indeed, the convener and myself would have been involved in the single service where this issue came up. Similarly, we dealt with a piece of legislation about hot pursuit at sea, if you recall, in the last session, convener, where, again, there were issues of jurisdiction. Clearly, BTPs have existing arrangements for that. I do not envision that they will necessarily change. Is their engagement with, for instance, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service and their opposite number, presumably the Crown Prosecution Service in England, address some of the concerns about what, to me, seem doable issues of addressing where a crime is alleged to have committed and then where it would? That is a very reasonable point. I am afraid that I cannot give you a detailed answer on that one. My expectation is that those arrangements do exist. However, the really important question—I really want to get this level of reassurance across to the committee today—is that, on a range of those questions, those practical operational questions, we are very much relying upon the specialist expert judgment of the British Transport Police to tell us what it needs in this area. Whether that is about practical hot pursuit questions, the range of day-to-day operational questions, what we are comfortable with and what we had to be comfortable with before we went down that particular route was that we had a sensible set of arrangements to ensure seamless cross-border policing. You very fairly, Mr Finnie, refer to the existing very good bilateral arrangements that exist across the border. We want to strengthen those on railway policing issues, and we want to ensure that the legislation that goes through the UK Parliament, section 104, I refer to, that we have done all the necessary work through the joint programme board to be fully clear about all those jurisdictional questions before that legislation gets to the UK Parliament. I would give you a reassurance that this is, again, one of the top issues upon our particular agenda, and we are relying to a substantial degree on those again who know best the British Transport Police to advise us on that. Thank you very much. Of course, that is very important for a reason that goes beyond the legislation that we are looking at. That is the security issue around particularly the threat of terrorism, which is some very minor incident. If we do not have those procedures right, that is an obligation not just for Scotland, but for the rest of the UK. The UK, collectively, is a global issue of course. Absolutely. We are very conscious about that, and I am also very conscious about the existing arrangements between Home Office forces in England and Wales and Police Scotland. I know that Mr Higgins talked about those a little bit when he was before you two weeks ago, and I think that those arrangements are incredibly important. What we are clear about is that the transport policing reforms, if they are adopted by the Scottish Parliament, should not inject any degree of security or other issue into what are arrangements that work well. Many thanks for that. The previous panel discussed the possibility of one-off costs of who meets the project costs. Has that been looked at by the Governance and Finance Group within the board? The operators believe that it is not their responsibility. Would the responsibility lie with the Scottish Government, if that is what has been discussed with the board? I think that there are two questions here. Costing questions have occupied a reasonable proportion of the board's time over the last couple of months. A lot of the questions are just understanding what the cost questions are, both the transitional costs but also any longer term costs that arise in this area. What we have very much tasked the British Transport Police Authority to do is to make sure that we fully understand those costs and cost implications over the next several months so that we can take a view on the appropriate allocation of those costs. It is absolutely fair to say that this is a matter that is still under discussion. In relation to the operators' points, I have heard the RDDG point very loudly, and I have had many discussions with the RDDG over the course of the past several months on the transitional cost issue. At this stage, our starting position is that there are a number of legislative changes that affect the British Transport Police on an annual basis. My team deals with a very substantial number of Home Office pieces of legislation that go through the United Kingdom Parliament and impose a degree of cost, to some extent that we would see this being essentially based on a similar basis. It would be a chargeable cost to the operators, but I have very much heard their concerns in this sort of area. That is why what we are doing is trying to push this question as far as we possibly can so that we understand what the delta is and what the level of cost is so that we can make an appropriate decision as to how it should be allocated. At the moment, there is no clarity about what would be established as transitional cost, about who meets the transitional cost. Is it possible that it would be the operators? I know that it is not your decision to make, but if you can move out. It is a very fair point. Frankly, the UK Government's starting position is that this is a chargeable expense, so it would be paid by the operators in the normal way. I am very conscious about the strong representations that the operators have made both this morning and as part of discussions to date. What we have effectively asked the British Transport Police Authority to do and they have been doing for some time is understanding the scale and nature of those costs so that we can reconsider if they should be dealt with in a different way. I apologise that that is not quite a comprehensive answer, but it is fair to say that we are genuinely trying to listen to operators as we go through this process and we are willing to think again about some principles in order that we can affect this process in the most collaborative and sensible way. You have said that it is the UK Government to decide, the UK Government believes that it should be a chargeable cost, but the legislation is not being brought forward by the UK Government, it is being brought forward by the Scottish Government. Is it because of the way in which it is constituted at the moment that it comes down to the UK Government? It is the way in which it is constituted at the moment. It is not their legislation or their decision? No, indeed. I think that that is exactly where the challenge becomes. Essentially, what happens at the moment is that a lot of change is made on an annual basis in relation to the BTP—a lot of changes. What that normally results in is cost implications for the operators who directly pay for and benefit from the policing service. Our start in proposition was that this was a change like any other, but we are also very conscious about the representations that have been made both today and previously. We want to understand the nature of the costs further in order to make a better, clearer decision on that question. One thing that I would really make clear is that there is a substantial interest in the operators ensuring that the right arrangements are in place for transfer. As I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure that the arrangements work on a cross-border and in England and Wales basis well into the future, well past 1 April 2019, if the devolution takes place at that point. There is a strong interest on the part of operators to make sure that any arrangements that are put in place over the course of the next couple of years continue to work for cross-border in England and Wales policing after that particular point. We think that there is a reasonable argument in that area, but I have very much heard the points that have been made. One final point. It is anticipated that there will be a very busy legislative programme at the UK Parliament over the next couple of years. Are you confident about the timescale that has been put in place and whether there is space for the legislation that is in place? That has been on our radar for some time, and we have done what we can to programme that in. As I said today, I am comfortable that we have done enough in order that this particular secondary legislation, and I would stress that it was a secondary legislation. I think that it is a primary legislation and there may be a bit more of a question. I feel that there is enough there that we should have confidence in the date. The critical question for me on the date is that—I do not want to leave the committee in any doubt about this—there is a huge amount of work to do between now and 1 April 2019. What we really need to be in a position to do through the joint programme board is to make sure that work is properly done. I think that the greater risk to the date would arise if that work is not taken forward in the most orderly manner. I am not factoring at the moment any risk in relation to parliamentary time, not least because it has been on our forward agenda for some time. I will just be clear that the train operators that you referred to, some of their evidence today that they want to be consulted from the outset, has the joint programme board formally met them? As chair of the joint programme board, I have met the Audigee several times, including meeting with the police and insecurity representative last week. We will continue that process of detailed engagement if the RDDG is one of our most important stakeholder groups in that area, and we will absolutely keep that process of engagement on-going. That includes both the bilateral discussions and discussions in the RDDG, the police and insecurity committee, which Mr Cooper talked about as a really important forum. We absolutely need to see that continuing. That's fine. We heard some issues from ScotRail and others today about the governance arrangements. Could you give us some details about the discussions that the board has had over governance going forward? The main discussions so far have been for us to go through some of the benefits that we see of having the spoke governance arrangements in place. We have talked previously in the context of the board about the sort of arrangements that the British Transport Police Authority currently has. The core aspects are that they are able to set policing objectives that reflect operator priorities, that are able to plan in a way that reflects the specialism and priorities of the force and that they are able to hold the force accountable to deliver. What we have tried to do is to talk through some of those questions. Speaking frankly, we were quite pleased to see the forum suggestion that is before you in the legislation, because we do think that one of the really important aspects of this is the specialism and maintaining the specialism of this particular, in my view, special force. Governance arrangements that reflect that are incredibly important, and we do think that the forum arrangement, if properly implemented, has many of those flavours of maintaining that sort of focus on the specialism. Although decisions will still be taken by the Scottish Police Authority and the single chief counsel for the whole of Police Scotland, and there are concerns within this Parliament, indeed this committee, about scrutiny at the role of the SPA, we have set up and still have a separate sub-committee specifically on policing, which does a lot of the work that many expect the SPA to do. Is that not a concern that we still have an authority in Scotland where people have concerns about their ability to scrutinise and lead Police Scotland in terms of the strategies that are leaving the operational side of the chief counsel, and we are now adding in another layer to this with the potential merger of BTP? I understand that point. I suppose that this is one of those areas where I feel a little reluctant to get into too much detail largely because I do think that the governance arrangements have to be fundamentally a matter for the Scottish Government as it brings forward its proposals in this particular area. I think that where the joint programme board has some value in this sort of area is by demonstrating the value of ensuring that governance arrangements support the effect of provision of a specialist policing force. I am very conscious about the UK Government specifically commenting on particular governance arrangements and particularly the arrangements in relation to the Scottish Police Authority. Mr Ross, if I could give you some reassurance, the level of discussion that I have had over the past couple of months with the Scottish Government on maintaining specialism is very substantial. It comes through in all of the documents about that sort of important recognition of specialism. That was not there when we started this joint programme board process 18 months ago. I think that the Scottish Government recognised the importance, but it did not underline it in the way that it has in the last several months, so I do think that there is a very strong foundation point to build on. I think that that is an interesting point. However, my concern would be that there are many things in the bill that introduced Police Scotland in a single fire and rescue service, one of them was that the SPA should be open, transparent and show good governance. Now we are seeing week after week that the SPA does not provide that at the moment and we will see what happens at their board meeting on Wednesday. However, I think that I would just make a final point on what you are saying. It is all very good to get that language coming from the Scottish Government. What we need to see before MSPs vote on this is that it will be implemented in any scrutiny body, any governance arrangements going forward. While language is useful at this stage, we need some evidence that that will happen. I am just concerned of all the topic headings that you have. That matters for the Scottish Government. I think that Mr Moore has really answered that question. I was just going to finish the point about asking about the projects. I was just trying to get the number of projects, but of the project schemes, governance and finance are put in together. In terms of the time that you are dedicating to these different schemes, are they all equal to those different projects or is governance anedia that is getting less attention deep to it? It is fair to say that it varies depending on the issues under discussion. It is absolutely fair to say that the ones that have taken a significantly greater amount of time in recent months have been the legislative aspect for understandable reasons, given the bill before this Parliament, but also the proceedings in the House of Laws last year. I think that governance has got a, just to rewind one point, I think that the things that have got most coverage within the context of the joint programme board have been a combination of workforce and operational questions, most particularly that cross-border issue that we have talked about. I think that governance has received relatively less prominence, but I do not think that is because it has understated its importance in the discussions so far. It is because I think that the Scottish Government has very much been emphasising the importance of governance arrangements that preserve specialism for some time, but we do see that. I take the convener's point very clearly here. I do think that that ultimately is a question for the Scottish Government. If you cannot give an answer just now, perhaps you could write to us for a timescale on completing each of the work streams, but in particular under the operational one, the jurisdictional issues seem pretty fundamental. I am very happy to do so. My sense is, if it is convenient with the committee, that the joint programme board will meet again in a week and a bit's time to discuss and review the project and if it would be possible to provide an update to the committee after that particular discussion and after you have had the minister before you, I think that that would be a good point at which to provide an update. I would be very, very happy to do so. I think that the committee would very much appreciate that. That concludes our questions. Thank you very much for attending today. Thank you very much for the opportunity. We now suspend briefly to allow the witness to leave. I think that that should not take too long. The agenda item number three is feedback from the Justice Committee on policing on its meeting on 16 March. Following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments or questions. I refer members to paper three, which is a note by the clerk. As Mary Fee is absent today, I will provide the feedback to the effect that the Justice Committee on policing met on 16 March when it took evidence from the Auditor General for Scotland on the 2015-16 audit report on the Scottish Police Authority. The sub-committee heard about the lack of a long-term financial strategy for Police Scotland and about on-going governance issues. The sub-committee will next meet on 30 March when it will take evidence from the Auditor General on Audit Scotland's I6 report, and, as ever, all members of the committee are very welcome to attend. Do members have any questions? There are no questions. We now move into private session. The next meeting of the committee will be on 23 March when we will consider our report on the Crown Office in Quirey. We are now in private session.