|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1070-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Wednesday 26 April 2006 CHIEF CONSTABLE IAN JOHNSON CBE QPM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ALAN BROWN SIR ALISTAIR GRAHAM and MR RICHARD HEMMING RT HON HAZEL BLEARS MP and DEREK TWIGG MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 252
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Transport Committee on Wednesday 26 April 2006 Members present Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair Mrs Louise Ellman Mr Robert Goodwill Mr John Leech Mr Eric Martlew Graham Stringer ________________ Memorandum submitted by British Transport Police
Examination of Witness
Witness: Chief Constable Ian Johnson CBE QPM, British Transport Police, gave evidence. Chairman: Chief Constable, we do have one little bit of housekeeping and that is members having an interest to declare. Mr Martlew: I am a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the General Municipal Workers' Union. Graham Stringer: I am a member of Amicus. Chairman: Aslef. Mrs Ellman: I am a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Q1 Chairman: Chief Constable, you are a most valued guest always for this Committee. I think you know the ground rules by now. Would you be kind enough to identify yourself for the record? Chief Constable Johnson: I am Ian Johnson. I am the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police. Q2 Chairman: Did you have something you wanted to say to us first? Chief Constable Johnson: I would be happy to go straight into business. Q3 Chairman: Is the British Transport Police fit for the 21st Century as it is currently organised? Chief Constable Johnson: It is a lot fitter today than it was 18 months ago. The journey has commenced and it is going very quickly, but there are still things to be done. I think there has been great progress made around infrastructure issues which HMIC were very critical of before. There has been major investment in IT, in finance, in HR, in estates and a major investment in Police Community Support Officers. There is still work to be done around our control room arrangements and around some matters within IT. I think there are opportunities for us to develop our policing style and to enable the policing formula, which works very well outside the railway environment, and to build stronger partnership arrangements with the train operators, Network Rail and London Underground. Q4 Chairman: That is very encompassing and very encouraging. How do you fit into the Home Office review of police structures? Chief Constable Johnson: The Home Office's review is looking at why there should be 43 police forces. A review was conducted by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary into the capacity and capability of forces to deliver what they call a range of protective services and these are broadly speaking to do with counter-terrorism, the more upper level parts of policing. That review drew some relationship between the size of force and capability and as a result of that a process of consultation was put in train which is leading towards an amalgamation of those forces. The Secretary of State for Transport took the view that it would be wrong for us to sit outside that process and therefore agreed to conduct his own review of us, with his own terms of reference, but to make sure it was timetabled with and took cognisance of what was happening in that review. They are two separate processes but they are aware of each other and aligned. Q5 Chairman: But this is not the first time you have had a review in the last four years. Chief Constable Johnson: This is the fourth review in four years. It does put significant pressure upon management time and it does concern front-line staff who obviously, like most human beings, value some sense of continuity in their lives. Q6 Chairman: Do you support the Metropolitan Police taking control of the British Transport Police for London? Chief Constable Johnson: No, I do not. I have got great admiration for the Metropolitan Police. I think they do an absolutely fantastic job. I had the privilege of working for them for a number of years and I think they have got some massive strengths. I do think the present arrangements provide the best possible service for the travelling public and for the railway operators. I think we have got specialist skills, I think we have got an understanding of the operating environment, I think we bring knowledge of the commercial context in which the railways run and I think we add significant value through our specialist nature, but I think there is a real risk of dilution of those skills. I think there is great value in having a single police force for the railway. Railways crisscross the country. Railways do not stop on the borders of London. I think what it would do is introduce a new set of boundaries which would be more difficult to manage than the existing boundaries. The relationship between us and the Met operationally is outstanding and it has been for years. We have well rehearsed protocols that served us very well on 7 July and they have served us very well indeed in terms of massive operations across London over the last decade. Those present arrangements are first class and I am confident they will continue. Q7 Chairman: Do you think it would affect the low level of crime on trains if the management were to change radically? Chief Constable Johnson: One of the great strengths of the Met is in relation to what professionally we call Level 2 crime. Level 1 crime is the anti-social behaviour, Level 3 is the international crook and Level 2 is the body of material that lies in the middle. I think where the Met brings to bear great strengths is in that Level 2 area, but most of the crime on the railways is within the Level 1 patch, it is the anti-social behaviour, the route crime and the assaults on staff. It is that sort of day-to-day policing which is the challenge for us on the railways. Having had the privilege of working in both organisations, I do not think the Met will bring to bear any greater expertise. They certainly have not got our familiarity with the challenges we have got or our awareness in a commercial context. Q8 Chairman: And your people are specially trained to deal with railways, are they not? Chief Constable Johnson: Absolutely. Q9 Graham Stringer: You have not dealt with the main argument that the Metropolitan Police put forward for a merger of the forces which is a unified command structure. I would be grateful if you would give me the pros and cons for that argument. Chief Constable Johnson: I think there are very legitimate arguments for having a single command geographically and also equally strong arguments for having a single command functionally. I think what the debate here is about is whether or not the benefits of having a single police force for London - and I can see some clear advantages in that - are outweighed by the disadvantages of having, at present, 43 police forces for the railway, because if you took the London bit away from BTP there would be a major question mark about the viability of the rest of the force which would mean it would have to be dispersed to other forces. I think you would then have, in terms of an integrated railway policing service, nothing at all. The fundamental point for me is not that the argument for having a single police force for London is unsound because I think there is great merit in having that. My second point is that if you think this is a boundary issue, you are merely creating a point about boundaries elsewhere. So instead of the boundaries coming between us and the Met they would come between the Met and all the other forces around the outskirts of London. So you would not get rid of a boundary problem, you would create new boundary problems within that system. For me what you have to ask is what the outcome is of this issue to do with boundaries and if the outcome is something to do with technology, get your technology lined up. We bought the same IT intelligence system as the Met has got. We bought the same national radio system as the Met has got. Q10 Chairman: You have the same radio system as the Met, have you? Chief Constable Johnson: We have additional radio facilities. We have two systems. We have the airwave system, which is the national radio system, but under ground we use the London Underground system. At present there is a major bit of work going on between a development company doing a PFI on London Underground and the airwave people about bringing these two systems together, which would make good sense for us and for everybody else. In terms of the boundary issues, you should be asking what the issues are that come out of that. The point I was going to make is that maybe it is to do with protocols. I think we have got fantastically well rehearsed protocols in operation with the Met. There is not a weekend that goes by when we are not doing joint operations with them about football or about events in London. These joint operations were tested to the extreme in July and I think everybody is agreed that that went extremely well in terms of an integrated policing operation. I think the point about boundaries that they are making and one police force for London is that if you get yourself one police force for London and lots of police forces for the railway you have to ask the question what is the issue that you are trying to address? If it is about integration in some form you find out what it is you want to integrate. If it is IT you join it up. If it is protocols you join it up. If it is operating the culture you have to find some way to join it up. I do not think you have to go through all the expense, disruption and the organisational uncertainty simply to address that problem. Q11 Graham Stringer: Is there anything that would have been better last July had there been just one force? I understand the argument about if you integrate London you disintegrate the rest of the service. I suppose what is at the back of my question is whether there are any practical problems which are driving the Met's view. Do you not accept that London is different not just in size but also in terms of the range of facilities, people and institutions there are here? It is much more likely to be a terrorist target. Chief Constable Johnson: Absolutely. It is quite right that very serious consideration is given to these issues. In terms of the BTP 's role in counter-terrorism, the railways have been the number one terrorist target for 150 years. We had massive experience during the IRA campaign which gave us a great platform to work from when we were dealing with the more recent counter-terrorist campaigns. We are not a force that is devoid of experience in this area, we have a lot of historical experience and we have risk managed that in a very effective way historically and our record is there for everybody to see. In terms of could we have operated better during July, I do not think there is anything in life that you cannot go back over and find a better way of operating. We were totally joined up. We had our people in their control room. We were part of a single command structure for the whole of London. I spoke to Ian Blair very shortly after nine o'clock that morning and I said to him that this was an "Operation Benbo" (?), which is the title of a joint operation, and that the command of the operation was his, so there was absolute clarity in terms of who was running the show and we had absolutely no operational conflicts throughout the whole of that period. The Met oversaw that particular single operation extremely well. Q12 Graham Stringer: You said that you had been improving your efficiency via technology and other organisational methods over the last 18 months. What was the main driver behind that? Do you accept the evidence that the Met gave which was that everything changed after 7 July? Chief Constable Johnson: We were in a position where we had been badly funded for a substantial period of time, to the point where Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary spoke about a legacy of neglect, the growing infrastructure and the rail review drew very similar conclusions. Another independent audit came to the same conclusion. Part of that process led to the appointment of the new police authority. As soon as the new police authority was appointed it put in train a programme of investment to address these issues and it has been extremely bold and it has been extremely well led in addressing those issues. Since the authority came into existence we have had something like a 40 per cent increase in budget to the British Transport Police. We have spent that on totally stripping out all our old IT systems which were very slow to respond and which left people for 15 or 20 minutes trying to get into the system throughout the country. We have modernised our finance department to give us greater efficiency, we have modernised our HR department so our people get dealt with properly and we have been able to get a number of buildings which are much more fit for the purpose. We have been able to invest in Police Community Support Officers despite the lack of Government funding for those. That degree of investment has been very important in taking us forward. I have forgotten the second part of your question. Q13 Graham Stringer: I think the burden of the argument that the Met is putting is that London is unique, you should have an integrated structure and the world changed after 7 July. I am trying to get you to address those arguments. Chief Constable Johnson: The world is constantly changing. This is not the first time it has changed. We had the IRA who wreaked havoc in London through their terror campaign. We have had lots of challenges in London around diversity issues which have required the world to change. I do not think this is the first time that the world has changed. I think this is a massive new challenge. I think the nature of the challenge is that the terrorists that we have been previously dealing with had a different outlook on life. They did not want to be caught. They did not want to kill too many people. The present lot do not mind whether they kill themselves or who they kill and certainly getting caught is not high on their agenda. The whole rationale and the scale of the terrorist attacks on us now are different. We have had very, very good investment in our response capability to match that. The Department for Transport funded some specialist response vehicles which have equipment on them that is the best in the world. We have had people from all over Europe coming to look at our equipment. We have recognised the changing nature of the world and equipped ourselves to deal with that. We contribute in a very useful way to the whole security framework within London, a security framework which is managed overall very effectively by the Metropolitan Police through something called the Security Review Committee which meets every week, which we go to and we respond to deployment challenges from that group in a very positive and integrated way. Q14 Mrs Ellman: If the Metropolitan Police did take over the British Transport Police in London, what would that mean for British Transport Police in the rest of the country? Chief Constable Johnson: I think it would place a very serious question mark over our viability as an organisation. In very broad terms, there are probably about 1,200 of our 2,700-odd officers in what you would call the Metropolitan Police area. It would half the size of the organisation. That would place a question mark on its viability. It would also place a question mark over how you are going to police the rest of the country given that you have now got this fresh border. So trains would leave London and become the responsibility of somewhere else on their route to other parts of the country. If the Met took it over, I think there would be a very serious question mark about the future of the British Transport Police and I think that would be a very bad thing for the industry and the passengers who use the system. Q15 Mrs Ellman: In what way will it be bad? What impact do you think that would have? Chief Constable Johnson: I see the outcome of that being no BTP. The rest of BTP's area would have to be dealt with by different forces. If you were a passenger on a train travelling out of Euston up to Glasgow, once you left the Metropolitan Police area, which is on the borders of Hertfordshire, you travel through a range of different force areas and if you lost your baggage on the way I do not know who you would find to deal with it. If you are a train operator and your train gets damaged on that route, who would deal with it? If a train event occurs in London it has knock-on effects around the country and so you would lose the connectivity in terms of the policing operation in dealing with the consequences of it. If you have football supporters who get on a train in Millwall and who are perhaps travelling up to some far part of the country, you would have a level of disintegration of policing activity which would be dysfunctional and not in anybody's interest. I think there is a whole range of factors that would come to bear if that was to take place. Q16 Mrs Ellman: In one of the alternatives the Government has put forward for change they talk about changing the method of payment to the British Transport Police, saying it would be like any other privatised service. What is your view of that? Chief Constable Johnson: I think this is a really challenging area. It is the cause of a lot of friction with the rail industry at the moment. I think it is a very complicated topic. The police service provides a public good. It is not a private security organisation for a train operator. It provides a range of policing services for the public who travel on it, the people who come in and out of stations, so it is not simply a security force. I think there is a tension around that. In terms of the funding itself, apportioning policing charges across operators is a very complex and difficult business. If you do it on the basis of history you can rest assured that the patterns of demand in the future will be different and there will be people who will be dissatisfied about that. I think there is a range of possibilities for addressing this which go from putting a ticket levy on which provides some sort of evenness and some transparency in terms of charging. There are some opportunities to do it through additional government funding perhaps in relation to counter-terrorism investment or, for example, in relation to initiatives which do not benefit the railways. For example, the criminal justice IT system that is going to be used throughout the UK is being provided by central government funding but it is not going to be providing central government funding for the British Transport Police, and I have to make the case to the rail industry about the business benefits of a joined-up criminal justice system to them and that is a fairly difficult task to undertake. I think the present arrangements are very troublesome and I think it would be useful to explore other methods. I personally quite like the ticket supplement because that works very effectively in the airline industry, but I guess these are matters for people other than me to decide upon. Q17 Mrs Ellman: The Government suggests that if the method of payment was changed it would provide more informed buyers of services. Is that meaningful to you? Chief Constable Johnson: I think what we get out of the present arrangement is massive interest by the train operators about levels of expenditure and a very keen and very understandable desire to make sure that their profits are maximised and their costs are minimised and that is a perfectly acceptable commercial model. When that plays out into policing, you are asking train operators to take into account the protection of the capital from counter-terrorism. The consequences of a terrorist attack on the stations in London go far beyond the economic implications of the railways, they affect the economy as a whole. So you are asking the operators at the moment to fund a security regime for responsibilities which I think go beyond them. I think it is a really complicated area. I think there is a role for some central government investment in those sorts of areas. Q18 Mrs Ellman: The Office of the Rail Regulator suggests that the industry (train operators and Network Rail) should pay more themselves, perhaps by being responsible for patrolling the stations. What do you think about that? Chief Constable Johnson: At the moment our capital money comes through the DfT and that is about £12 million this year out of a £200 million budget, so it is a relatively small percentage. Most of the money comes from train operators, from London Underground and Network Rail and it is divided proportionately between those. All of the money in a sense comes from the operators at the moment. I think what I am saying is that there is probably a case for some expenditure which addresses issues of public good, like the protection of London against terrorism, which could be legitimately funded directly by Government. Q19 Mr Goodwill: I would like to pick up on something you said earlier about the understanding of the operating environment. How big a job would it be to equip Met officers with the necessary skills to allow them to be deployed on the network, and what particular problems were you talking about? Chief Constable Johnson: There are technical issues about training. Our officers have track safety training. To police the railways up and down the country we train 2,500 people. If the Met were to police the railways I am not quite certain how they would decide who was going to be trained if there were not a dedicated force to deal with the railways. If there were a dedicated force to deal with the railways you would have to say what is the difference between that and what we have currently got? I think the bigger issue is one of culture where we very much understand the implications of knock-on events. When we have a fatality on the line we have a target time for clearing that up in an efficient and effective way. By using that approach we have reduced the delay minutes down from 120 minutes three years ago to about 80 minutes now. We have got a culture which I think recognises not only the operational implications of policing interventions but also the commercial consequences and they are commercial consequences in the sense that they are passengers stuck in tunnels, so there are safety issues relating to that. We also understand if you do something to a train at Euston you can disrupt services all day long. It is clearly not impossible for anybody to build up that level of understanding, but this is a level of understanding which has been developed. I am not saying it has taken 150 years to develop, but we have been policing the railways for something like 150 years and so we have got a culture which recognises our operating context. We have used that to build very strong relationships within the industry. We use that to build relationships with people who work on stations. I am by no means saying that there is absolutely no possibility of anybody else ever doing what we are doing because clearly that is nonsense. What I am saying is there ought to be a clear set of benefits because there are going to be costs associated with this, so you need to have a very clear understanding of what the benefits are and I think that we give good value at the moment for it. I think with the investment that has been made in this we can give even better value in it. I think we have got some existing advantages through our present understanding which would be a catch-up job for others to do. Q20 Mr Goodwill: Conversely, how would your officers be equipped to integrate in Met operations? Would they require additional training or not? Chief Constable Johnson: It depends what job you gave them in the Met. If you put them in firearms teams, we do not have firearms officers so they would clearly require that training, but most of the Met are not firearms officers. Our training regime is exactly the same as Home Office forces with the exception that we do a fortnights additional training to help us deal with a range of railway issues and obviously that training is supported from the initial training and thereafter during their careers. Q21 Mr Goodwill: If there were a merger, what you are saying is that it would not be the forces merging it would just be some at the top? Chief Constable Johnson: I do not know. In terms of exploring the detail, there are a number of different models for how they could do it and I guess they would be the people to ask about that. I think the Met is a very, very large and very, very capable organisation which does lots of things extraordinarily well. I also think it has got quite a few challenges. I think that because we are a relatively small organisation, we are a specialist organisation, this is our top level business, this is what keeps us in business, we are very highly motivated around this. We want to police the railways, that is why we join. If you put us in with another organisation, which is what they did in New York, you would find high levels of demotivation and that led in the short term to major increases in crime in the New York subway and to asset stripping. So the numbers on the New York subway went down in order to supplement the over land policing. There is actually a disparity in crime levels. I know we have had discussions about this. Crime on the railways compared with elsewhere is much lower. I used a figure recently where throughout the whole of England and Wales we have got broadly the same level of crime on the railways as there is in Westminster in one year. We have got a handle on this and I think we are doing a good job. That is not to say we cannot do better and that nobody else should ever look at it. It is absolutely right they should. I think if we had been left out when reviewing the 43 forces it would not have been a good idea. I do think there is something about making a strong case for change because there are substantial costs organisationally, financially and energy wise associated with it. Q22 Mr Leech: Do you think there is potential for the train operating companies who are currently paying your wages to then start arguing that they were funding policing outside of the railways and, in fact, there would be a shift of policing from the railways to other areas that are perceived to have more crime? Chief Constable Johnson: I think that is the point I am making. Certainly the New York experience was that when the under ground police there were taken over by New York that is exactly what happened, officers were taken out of the under ground. Q23 Mr Leech: Do you think that would happen here as well? Chief Constable Johnson: I can only speculate. I could not possibly know. If you are policing on an intelligence-led model or a rational management model and if you are sensible you put your resources where there is most demand. It is possible to infer that there is greater demand for policing outside the railways and if you amalgamate the two you are going to get asset stripping on the railways. Q24 Mr Leech: Last week you told us what a good relationship the British Transport Police had with all the other agencies that deal with security at stations. Do you think there is potential for a breaking down in that relationship if the responsibility went to the Metropolitan Police? Chief Constable Johnson: I think it would be at different levels. Mike Brown, the Chief Operating Officer, and I know each other personally and have got a very good relationship. I know Keith Ludeman and Andrew Haines. All the MDs here have personal contact with the Chief Constable of the Blair specialist police force. I do not think, having worked at the Met, that Ian Blair will have sufficient time on his hands to do that. I think he has probably got a much wider range of responsibilities. That is not to say that the police sitting behind me, Alan Brown, could not start to build that relationship, but it is there, we have got it and it is built on mutual understanding and mutual trust. Q25 Mr Leech: So would you say the old phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is your view on the British Transport Police? Chief Constable Johnson: I am more critical of any organisation of which I am a member. I am not saying there is nothing to do in my organisation. I think there is loads to do in my organisation. I am just saying that if you are into the business of deciding whether the railways are best policed by a specialist force or by lots of disparate other forces then I think there is a really strong case for an integrated single force for policing the railways. I think if the Met took over responsibility for policing the railways that would interfere with that principle in a very significant way and I think they would have a very steep learning curving. The sort of relationship that the most senior people in the rail industry are able to build with their senior officers within BTP would be very difficult to replicate in the Metropolitan Police. Q26 Mr Martlew: You have spent all your time here answering our questions very well about the railways. Why is the name of your organisation the British Transport Police when you do not have any responsibility for anything else? Chief Constable Johnson: It is a bit of an historical anomaly. To be honest with you, I guess it would be intelligent to think carefully about that. A lot of people hang on to that for the heritage. We used to police the docks and the waterways and so the transport police at that stage was a much more intelligent decision. We only do railways and trams now. That is not to say that there are not options for us to take our national infrastructure and our understanding of the transport system into other bits of transport, but railway police is a more accurate title. Chairman: It might be a good idea to suggest going back to the docks. Sorry! Q27 Mr Martlew: Do you think there are other parts of the transport system where you could use your expertise? Chief Constable Johnson: Yes, I do. This is not something that you do at the drop of a hat. You need to think your way through all these things. The airports are a very similar operating environment to the railways. It is a commercial operating environment. There are massive knock-on consequences of policing interventions at airports which can have long-term economic effects and impacts on passengers throughout the world. I think you could bring to bear a body of useful experience in that. We already have in place a national infrastructure to manage those situations. At present there is a review of borders policing being undertaken by Government and I think again with our national infrastructure and with ports being part of the transport arrangements that would make sense. You talk about the integration of bus transport and railway transport. There are transport hubs at Heathrow and Dover where I think the British Transport Police could add value. I think we have got quite a lot on our plates at the moment. I would like to provide a really high-class service on the railways in a sense before I set my sights on looking anywhere else. Q28 Mr Martlew: On the Met, I suspect that none of us is surprised that you put a bid in for it. Is there anything in reality that stops the Met Police from going onto railway land or going on the Underground? Chief Constable Johnson: Not a bit. They are absolutely brilliant. They do. They are all over Victoria and we are absolutely delighted they are. Our PCSOs walk round the outside of Victoria and if something happens we go and help them. On the ground there is a really mature working relationship and at senior level. There is nothing personal in any of this debate. I think it is a perfectly legitimate debate. I think we have very good working relationships at ground floor level. We are delighted if the Met come on to railway stations, it is fantastic. We are delighted to see them on trains. They get travel concessions to encourage them to come on trains. They are absolutely welcome, there are absolutely no barriers and we think it is a great idea. Q29 Mr Martlew: All the train companies get subsidies from the Government. Would it not be sensible to top-slice that and fund the police directly to avoid having this argument about which train companies should pay how much and when they are going to pay it? I understand some of them are not very good at paying. Chief Constable Johnson: I think that is one of the good ideas because the £1 I get off the train operator, is it a government pound or is it a fare box pound? Whose pound is it? I think there is an administrative money-go-round which is probably a more expensive way of managing affairs and in my opinion it could take a big sting out of the conflict we have over the railways to do with funding. It has been our police authority who I think have made a massive difference to the British Transport Police recently because they have had the ability to make decisions about levels of funding and I think it is that that has turned the force around and that might not have occurred if there had been other arrangements in place. This is a complex issue. I do not think there is a single easy solution otherwise it would have happened already. Q30 Chairman: Are your payments usually on time? Chief Constable Johnson: Some people are very good and some people owe us money for a long, long period of time. Q31 Chairman: Could I guess that was a no, Chief Constable? Chief Constable Johnson: Yes. Q32 Chairman: You are always very helpful and enormously diplomatic. I think we could all take lessons from you. Thank you very much for coming. Chief Constable Johnson: Thank you. Witness: Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown, Metropolitan Police, gave evidence. Q33 Chairman: Good afternoon, Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner Brown: Good afternoon, Chairman. Can I start by offering the Commissioner's apologies as he is unable to be here due to the fact that he is on holiday at the moment and he is not expected back until much later this evening. I am afraid that I am here to represent him. Q34 Chairman: Do not be afraid. We will be very gentle! Just tell us officially who you are. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I am Alan Brown. I am Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police, with responsibility for professional standards and outward looking affairs. Q35 Chairman: Is the British Transport Police, as structured, fit for its purpose? Assistant Commissioner Brown: Before I answer that question I would welcome the opportunity just to make a short statement. Q36 Chairman: Please do. That would be helpful. I should have asked you. I beg your pardon. Assistant Commissioner Brown: First of all, the Metropolitan Police Service's position in relation to the British Transport Police should not be seen as predatory. The MPS holds the British Transport Police in respect both as a policing agency and as a partner agency. However, our position is driven by providing the best policing response for the people of London, be they the people who live, work and travel to London or indeed have businesses which enable that to take place. Both train and tube stations play an important role in many of London's communities. They impact upon the surrounding environment, not just on the confines of the station. The safety of stations and transport hubs play an important part in how Londoners feel about their safety and security. We believe there is a clear expectation from the public that the policing of all aspects of London will be carried out in a way that provides them with confidence and in a way that is not hampered by organisational boundaries nor variation in capability, and it is on that basis that the MPS sees significant advantage in amalgamating with a part of the British Transport Police which has responsibility for the policing of the Underground the over ground rail systems within the Metropolitan Police area and including the Croydon Tram Link. We would wish to see a seamless link between rail transport policing in the communities of London, acknowledging that those who commit offences against the railway property are likely to live in local communities whilst those who commit offences against the customers of the train operating companies within the London area will also predominantly come from within London communities. The need to create a hostile environment for the offender would be more comprehensibly achieved if there was one intelligence and tasking system. In relation to the investigation of serious crime, there is a compelling case to ensure that there is capability to respond either reactively or proactively in a timely fashion. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's assessment of the MPS in regard to the investigation of major and serious crime is excellent as is their ability to tackle Level 2 crime. Amalgamating the London British Transport Police area into the MPS would enable those same standards to be applied across the rail network in London. As London approaches 2012 and the Olympic Games it has been acknowledged that transport will be one of the factors that determines if London will host a successful Games. Security on the transport system will be seen as an important subject in ensuring the effectiveness of that system. A single force command structure will allow for improved Olympic policing by providing that seamless link between rail, marine, road, territorial and stadium policing and the counter-terrorist aspects that would pervade all of those issues. It will enable a single intelligence and communications system and it will enable the MPS expertise in dealing with the movement of large crowds to be seamlessly engaged. The Security Director of the Olympics is a serving Metropolitan Police Service Assistant Commissioner. In providing confidence to the train operating companies we would point to the policing of roads in London, which was again assessed as excellent by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, and the partnership that the MPS has with Transport for London. In working in partnership with TfL to a special service agreement delivery standards are achieved which improve customer confidence whilst having a focus on prosecuting those who attack staff and make it unpleasant to travel on the buses. Of particular interest here is the deployment of PCSOs providing high visibility support, generating confidence and reassurance to both passengers and staff. I would also just like to draw a couple of other issues to your attention, one of which is what is the official Association of Chief Police Officers' position and the Home Secretary's position in relation to the creation of strategic forces. This is a quote from the Home Secretary in a letter to the Association of Police Authorities. Q37 Chairman: I am going to be very boring. Perhaps we will ask the questions and you will give us the answers because we have a Home Office Minister who I am sure will be really excellent in answering for them. It is rather interesting that you emphasise Level 2 crime. Do you accept that most of British transport policing is Level 1 crime? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I would not stress the importance of Level 2 crime over anti-social behaviour. Q38 Chairman: But you did quote it and it is one of the things that you prayed in aid. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I did quote it and pray it in aid primarily because of the ability of the Metropolitan Police to respond and provide a service that I would suggest is not currently capable of being supplied by the British Transport Police. Q39 Chairman: Was there a problem in July? Were you not able to work together? Was there some problem that arose? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I was the officer in charge of the response for 7 July. Q40 Chairman: Was there a difficulty? Assistant Commissioner Brown: There were a number of issues in relation to the overall policing response. The arrangements that existed between the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police and the City of London Police worked well on those occasions. Yes, there were some difficulties in communicating between under ground and over ground and, as you have already heard Ian say, those are going to be the subject of some work and we anticipate that by 2007 those difficulties will be overcome. Q41 Chairman: Although there were some problems which have been identified and rectified, are you not aware of any major problem that arose? Assistant Commissioner Brown: Not on 7 July. I would say 7 July was an extremist situation, it was at the extreme level of policing response. My answer to are there difficulties would be that one perhaps should look at the other end of the policing response to see where the connectivity is between the local communities of London, how they perceive the boundaries that exist between policing the communities of London and policing the rail networks of London. Q42 Chairman: So you have had representations from the local councils that the British Transport Police are not doing their job on stations or you have had representations from elected members that there is a gap? Assistant Commissioner Brown: There is an expectation that the communities of London have and the people of London have and that has been voiced by the Mayor of London Q43 Chairman: The Mayor is excellent. Is there anyone other than the Mayor that has demonstrated this very clear gap that is worrying them? Assistant Commissioner Brown: A number of people have. A number of victims have. A number of people who have been the subject of crime are concerned and do show some frustration that it is not joined up in the way that perhaps the people of London would expect. Q44 Chairman: Which particular way? Assistant Commissioner Brown: There is a gap in terms of capability. Q45 Chairman: Not enough police officers? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I am not saying there are not enough police officers. Q46 Chairman: Inadequate police training? Forgive me, I am not very clever, Mr Brown. What is it you are saying to me exactly? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I do not accept that you are not very clever, Chairman. What I am saying to you is that there are gaps between the Metropolitan Police and the service provision that is provided by the British Transport Police and they are best exampled by the level of response, particularly in relation to serious crime. The concern that the Metropolitan Police has is in relation to the connectivity between the community as it goes about its business in London and the need to provide a continuous policing response. I would say there are gaps between that lower level tasking and the lower level collection of intelligence and the ability to share that intelligence and it is an area of concern. Q47 Chairman: So they get the intelligence but they do not tell you, is that what you are saying? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think it probably travels both ways. Chairman: It is quite possible. Q48 Graham Stringer: The basis of your evidence is that the nature of policing the capital changed fundamentally and irreversibly on 7 July. That is rubbish, is it not? Assistant Commissioner Brown: No. Q49 Graham Stringer: Explain why it is not. Assistant Commissioner Brown: It is not rubbish because London has never ever had a threat as described by the events of 7 July or indeed the attempts of 21 July. The paradigm for counter-terrorism fundamentally changed on that day. The need for a different style of policing response became immediately apparent from that day. There was a very clear change in the paradigm of policing for London and indeed the rest of the country from that day onwards. Q50 Graham Stringer: We have spoken to the security services and the police force not just in this city but around the world. There have been attacks in east Africa, Bali, Istanbul, New York and Washington by al Qaeda and there have been IRA attacks here. The Metropolitan Police Service and the security services were aware before 7 July and they were making preparations that those attacks would be likely to take place. Every single security service that we have spoken to has said that the attacks were inevitable before 7 July and they are still inevitable. So explain to me what fundamentally changed on 7 July. You clearly knew what was happening around the world and what the threat was here. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think your statement is slightly disingenuous. Q51 Graham Stringer: They are the facts. Assistant Commissioner Brown: Can I answer, please? Q52 Graham Stringer: You said they were disingenuous. They were not. I was stating facts. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think what absolutely changed fundamentally on that date was the fact that the attacks actually happened. If you look at the profile of those people who were engaged in those attacks, it was a fundamental difference to what we had ever experienced on mainland UK before and I do not think you will find anybody from the policing service who would argue that that was not the case. Q53 Graham Stringer: Similar attacks had taken place in New York and had been planned elsewhere in Europe. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I do not recall any similar attacks in New York. I recall some horrific attacks which were perpetrated by people who had hijacked aeroplanes. I do not recall any attacks by people who had adopted what has become known as suicide bombing by carrying rucksacks laden with explosives. I do not recall that anywhere else. Q54 Graham Stringer: The fundamental paradigm of the operation is that terrorists are willing to kill themselves. They killed themselves in New York and Washington. The point I am making is that the threat was there. Your evidence is different from the evidence we have received from the security services that have acknowledged that the threat was there previously, it is still there and we want the best response we can get from it. In your opening statement you said you did not want to be seen to be predatory. Assistant Commissioner Brown: We do not. Q55 Graham Stringer: What I am listening to in the evidence is a lack of substance of real problems. You string together a whole series of abstract nouns like connectivity, community response and you do not give me anything what would persuade me that there was a real problem in policing terms in the capital. You have not given me real examples of where people have suffered crime, death or violent activities because of the fact that the policing on the railways is not controlled by the Met. Assistant Commissioner Brown: What I have tried to explain is that there are some significant difficulties and some significant expectations in how policing is delivered across the capital. I am firmly of the opinion that as good as the British Transport Police is and as well as the transport police cooperate, it is very clearly the position of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Secretary, the Home Office and indeed ourselves that the history of collaboration is not as good as one organisation actually having the responsibility. That is a position that is acknowledged by chief police officers throughout the country. What you had in London is you had an artificial boundary. Ian talked about the creation of additional boundaries. I would suggest that by amalgamating the British Transport Police certainly within the London area you reduce the boundary, because we already have boundaries with those forces that border onto the Metropolitan Police area and so we already have those relationships. What you have is an extra layer which complicates the current environment, which is the boundary between ourselves and the British Transport Police in London. What I am saying is that there is significant benefit in joining up the community approach to policing - and it is being adopted by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the Government - the more serious aspects of crime investigation. The expectation that the people of London have is that that will take place in the best and most seamless way that can be delivered. I am saying that by having the Metropolitan Police take responsibility for policing the railways within London is the best way to deliver it. Q56 Graham Stringer: Can you give me particular examples of where people have suffered because of the boundary between the transport police and yourselves? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I have not come here with any specific examples. I have come here with an understanding of what the policing environment in London actually is. Q57 Graham Stringer: These very general organisational issues take me back to your very first point, which was that you are operating as a standard predatory bureaucracy. You say things have fundamentally changed, therefore we will take over somewhere else. I am quite willing to accept that as an argument if you can tell me that real people are suffering here in London because of it and so far you have not done so. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I am sorry that I have not persuaded you of that. Q58 Graham Stringer: You have not given me real examples. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I have not come here with real examples. I have come with a strategic position based upon an understanding of how policing within London is currently conducted. There are some significant economies and efficiencies that would come out of this as well. The backroom amalgamations would release significant funding that would undoubtedly be able to be ploughed back into front-line policing. The creation of additional bureaucracy and line management and command structures would all be significantly reduced if there was one command structure for London and that additional money could be ploughed back into London. Q59 Mr Martlew: The reality is that would apply to a national police force, is it not? Assistant Commissioner Brown: It is possible that could apply to a national police force if indeed there was a case to argue for that. Q60 Graham Stringer: We can recognise that you have not provided the real examples on the ground. In terms of the administrative arguments, can you respond to the argument that if you integrate services in London you disintegrate the rail service across the whole of the country and people in Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool may well suffer a worse service when they are travelling on the trains? Assistant Commissioner Brown: It is not for me to comment on what would happen outside of the Metropolitan Police Service area. Q61 Chairman: It is. That is the question you are being asked. You cannot really say we are going to take over two-thirds of an organisation but, of course, it is not for me to comment on what would happen to the remaining third or whatever. Frankly, you did not come here to say that you just have a series of abstract ideas presumably, you have come on the basis of some evidence. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I certainly did not come here with a series of abstract ideas and I am sorry if you think that what I have said is an abstract idea. What I have tried to demonstrate to you is that there is concern about the approach to policing in London that sees there to be two police forces providing the policing service to London. Q62 Chairman: Could you take your courage in your hands and comment on what would happen to the rest of the transport police? Assistant Commissioner Brown: What would happen to the rest of the transport police would be informed by negotiations between the new strategic forces and the British Transport Police and the train operating companies. I am afraid I am not in a position to say quite how that would be managed. Q63 Chairman: And you would not really be concerned because the Met is only concerned with how it can bump up its numbers. Assistant Commissioner Brown: The Metropolitan Police is not concerned about how it can bump up its numbers. The Metropolitan Police is concerned about its policing service delivery to the people of London. It is not concerned about numbers, it is concerned about making sure that the best service is delivered to the people of London and that is the whole reason for my appearance here today. Q64 Graham Stringer: If the transport police was integrated with the Met in London, do you not believe as an Assistant Commissioner that there would be times when work on the railways would be de-prioritised? You would be able to say there are real problems happening at the present time in Brixton or Camden or at Heathrow Airport, that is the nature of a large organisation, it can prioritise, but you would get a worse service on the overland rail and the tube service. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think in answering that question I would refer you to the experience that we can point to particularly in relation to the policing of Heathrow Airport and in relation to the arrangements that have been drawn up in terms of the provision of neighbourhood policing and indeed those pieces of Transport for London that we have responsibility for. I would suggest that all of those concerns could be removed by the fact that there would be an agreed service agreement as to the levels of service that we provided and that only on occasions of extremist circumstances would you find that resources would be removed over and above that. Yes, if there were significant levels of attacks against a particular part of London and it was necessary to take resources from the transport system then that would undoubtedly happen. That would undoubtedly happen now. The creation of one force would not alter that. The reality is that our argument is based upon providing the best service and that revolves around the level of capability that we have that British Transport Police does not have, the removal of the possibility of disconnect because you have got two lines of command and the ability that having one organisation with responsibility would have in terms of creating greater connectivity between what is an emerging success story around the policing of neighbourhoods and communities within London and engaging those with the transport infrastructure throughout London. Q65 Mrs Ellman: You have just stated that the Met has a level of capability that the British Transport Police does not have. Assistant Commissioner Brown: That is true. Q66 Mrs Ellman: You are saying it is true. Can you then give me an example of where the British Transport Police has let the community down and where you can demonstrate you could have done it better? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I do not think it is up to me to comment on the British Transport Police's --- Q67 Mrs Ellman: I think it is. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I do not intend to. Q68 Mrs Ellman: What we are discussing is your support for a proposal which would fundamentally change the nature of policing of rail and cause the disbandment of the British Transport Police certainly in London and probably beyond, but you have already said that is not your concern. Therefore, I am asking you for specific examples of where the current system has failed and how the Met would make it better. You do have to give those examples because otherwise your argument does not have any substance. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I would draw evidence from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reports and the baseline assessment of the two forces and I would draw your attention to the capabilities as reported on both forces particularly in relation to the investigation of serious crime and in relation to the ability to tackle what was described earlier as Level 2 crime, particularly in relation to the provision of forensic support, all of which give the Metropolitan Police significant capability that is not enjoyed by the British Transport Police. Q69 Mrs Ellman: What about the level of crime which the British Transport Police is particularly involved with? That is a different level of crime, is it not? In what way can the Metropolitan Police do the job better than the British Transport Police can in London? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think if you look at the extreme end and you look at the investigation of the offences of 7 July and where most of those offences were committed, they were committed on the railways and yet it was the Metropolitan Police that investigated those. If you look at the offences of murder that have been committed on British Transport Police property, you will find there were three offences of murder in the last 12 months. One of those offences had to be investigated by the Metropolitan Police. The model of murder investigation as practised by the Metropolitan Police is now the model of murder investigation that is being promulgated as good practice and because of the limited resources and the great stretch that the British Transport Police have they are unable to put that model to work. Q70 Mrs Ellman: But what about the type of crime that British Transport Police typically deal with? What evidence do you have that the Met could do it better? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I am not suggesting that the Met could investigate the lower level crime better. Q71 Mrs Ellman: Is that not a significant point in relation to the bulk of the work of the British Transport Police? I am directing your attention to that issue because that is very important in the context that we are discussing. In what way do you believe that the Met could do a better job than the British Transport Police in dealing with that sort of crime which is typically found on the railway? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I do not think it is a question of the Metropolitan Police doing it better because we would certainly look to take those resources that are currently deployed and have that expertise within the British Transport Police and make them more available to work with and to be better informed by crime that has significant connectivity to those offences that are committed on the British Transport Police network. Q72 Mrs Ellman: So are you saying that there is evidence that the Met could do it better or that they could not? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I am saying that the approach would be better if there were no gaps in the Metropolitan Police Service or indeed British Transport Police. Q73 Mrs Ellman: But do you not have to demonstrate how that major change would improve the situation? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think I can aptly demonstrate the ability to improve through greater and better informed deployment of resources, so better use of intelligence, better tasking of resources, greater connectivity between local policing efforts within the Metropolitan Police area. Though not specifically for this hearing, we have done some work to identify what is the level of connectivity between the Metropolitan Police Service and the British Transport Police and there is no doubt that around larger transport hubs there is significant co-operation. However, in those stations that are more to be found in the areas of residential communities there is a significant lack of connectivity between the ability of the British Transport Police even to be made aware of what the problems are within the local policing areas and how local communities see the role and part that local stations play within those communities. Q74 Mrs Ellman: What efforts have been made to try and join up in those areas? Assistant Commissioner Brown: We make our information available but I think the British Transport Police is probably restricted by the manpower that it has. Q75 Mrs Ellman: But what efforts have been made by the Met to join up in those areas where you say there is no connectivity? Assistant Commissioner Brown: As I said, we have made our intelligence available, but I think that the restriction is the level of manpower and the level of capability that the British Transport Police has. Q76 Mr Martlew: We have just heard from the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police that he is very happy for the Met to go on what you would call his beat any time you like. The idea that the neighbourhood police cannot go onto the local suburban station I do not think is correct, is it? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I did not say it was. Q77 Mr Martlew: But you gave that implication, that there was a problem, did you not? Assistant Commissioner Brown: No, but there is also an issue that we are not funded and we are not staffed to police the Underground system. What I am saying is that in terms of having one police service for London it is actually about bringing together the British Transport policing area and their resources - and I think that is a critical part, to bring their resources, their expertise, together - and aligning them through one command, one intelligence, one tasking and co-ordinating process, connecting them together and realising economies and efficiencies of scale in relation to the back-up and the management on-costs and delivering that to front-line policing services. Q78 Mr Martlew: You have mentioned the boundaries but you realise, of course, that there are police forces on the boundaries of your area. Assistant Commissioner Brown: Indeed. Q79 Mr Martlew: And therefore there are the same problems with them that you have with the British Transport Police. Assistant Commissioner Brown: No, there are not. Q80 Mr Martlew: Why is that? Assistant Commissioner Brown: The boundaries of the British Transport Police are like veins that run through our own area. In relation to those forces that are the other side of those boundaries, that is where they stay, whereas the British Transport Police is within the London area. It serves and deals with the communities of London. Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, the Thames Valley, Surrey do not. Q81 Mr Martlew: I am bemused by the way that you can come forward to the select committee but, more importantly, come forward to Parliament, with a plan to break up the British Transport Police and yet you are saying, "We have not given any thought to what happens to the rest. We do not really care what happens to the rest". Assistant Commissioner Brown: It is not true. We do care. Q82 Mr Martlew: I am sorry: that was my interpretation of what you have said today. Assistant Commissioner Brown: Our care is about providing the best policing response to the people of London. I do acknowledge that that would create difficulties for policing arrangements outside of London. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the British Transport Police to know whether that would enable them to be able to continue as a separate force or whether there would be compelling grounds to amalgamate and have territorial policing and responsibility for policing the railways where the railways touch their territory, but I certainly do believe that it is the right way of providing the best policing response to London. Q83 Mr Martlew: But do you accept that that might be a problem for government and for the rest of the country? Assistant Commissioner Brown: Indeed, and I have no doubt that it will be one of those areas that you will have consideration of in any recommendations that you may make. Q84 Mr Martlew: Looking at what you have said, the only evidence that you have brought forward today is that there were three murders under the auspices of the British Transport Police and they had to call the Met in to solve one of them. Is that correct? Assistant Commissioner Brown: That is not the only evidence that I bring forward today. What I bring forward today is the evidence that has been provided by the HMIC. What I bring forward today is the evidence and the undoubted demand for the people of London to have one service to deal with policing for the area of London. Q85 Mr Martlew: We have just had that evidence. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I have just given it to you. Q86 Mr Martlew: No: where is the evidence that that is what the people of London want? Assistant Commissioner Brown: Where does the evidence for that come from? That comes from polls, that comes from reports. Q87 Chairman: Could I point out to you that when we are talking about evidence in polls, Members of Parliament do not always have this blind faith in opinion polls that you seem to have. In February a MORI poll said 53 per cent of Londoners thought Sir Ian Blair should resign, over half of Londoners are not confident that the Metropolitan Police could investigate such crimes as vehicle theft, burglary, mugging or vandalism, and on anti-social behaviour 65 per cent of them thought you were not going to. I think there is a difference between evidence and opinion polls but perhaps that is because I have been here quite a long time. Assistant Commissioner Brown: I have said what I have said. It is the position of the Metropolitan Police. Whether you regard that as being evidence or whether you do not, it is there as the position of the Metropolitan Police. It is based on a professional understanding of what policing in London actually needs to enable it to move forward. Q88 Mrs Ellman: The Metropolitan Police presumably feel sufficiently confident in their abilities to take on new responsibilities. Why do you feel that, with all the problems that you are currently facing and without any evidence that you have given us that the people of London are dissatisfied with the current service of British Transport Police in London? Assistant Commissioner Brown: In terms of are we confident that we could take on the responsibilities that are currently held by the British Transport Police, I think that we would be heavily reliant upon the expertise that they already have within their membership to be able to provide that. What I am saying is that by bringing the two forces together there would be a greater capability than currently exists, and that is a significant issue, particularly when you look at the evidence of the HMIC and the concerns they raise. I am saying that by bringing the two forces together, by putting them under a single command structure, you would be able to release additional resources and you would be able to increase the capability to respond to serious incidents in a way that had greater confidence, in a way that had greater timeliness. That is a significant issue that I think the committee should have cognisance of when considering these issues. Q89 Mr Goodwill: Mr Brown, you have talked a lot about one force, but we were told in the previous evidence session that much of the technical expertise needed to operate on the transport network and on the signalling system and knowledge of the electrification, et cetera, would mean that the merger would only ever be a merger of command and budgets and that on the ground there would be limited opportunities to have this interoperability you which seem to be referring to. Assistant Commissioner Brown: In what you say there is some significant force. We would be reliant upon the expertise until such time as we were in a position to be able to train some of our own people in relation to that expertise. Q90 Mr Goodwill: Would that not be a waste of resources, duplicating training so that you had a larger number of officers who could go on the network or do other policing work? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I also have no doubt that if you asked the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police whether or not he could do with additional resources to police some of those more remote Underground stations and overland stations, he would say, "Absolutely". What we are talking about here is greater connectivity, greater capability. If one of the things that needed to be done to achieve that was a spreading of the ability and a greater understanding of the skills necessary to work on the railway line, then yes, we would be in a position to do that. We certainly are not in a position to do that at the moment. Q91 Mr Leech: I wondered whether you had had any discussions with the British Transport Police about whether or not there were available other alternatives to having a single force in London to deal with these perceived problems. Assistant Commissioner Brown: No. We were specifically asked by the Department for Transport to deal through the Department for Transport. Q92 Mr Leech: But would you say that potentially there could be other ways of dealing with the perceived problems of not being joined up? Assistant Commissioner Brown: The only other way of dealing with it would be through greater collaboration and federation of resources, and I refer back to the evidence that is acknowledged by the Association of Chief Police Officers, by ourselves and by the Home Secretary that collaboration has significant inability to deliver what an amalgamated response can deliver. Q93 Mr Leech: What differences would there be? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think the differences would be those that exist at the moment and that would exist unless you had an ability to put in a lot of money. I know that Ian said we have got the same IT system, particularly around intelligence. It may be provided by the same manufacturer but it has no ability whatsoever to speak to our system, it has no ability whatsoever to exchange information. The command and control system is different. The equipment that is issued is different. What I am saying is that by having one force you get greater flexibility in terms of your deployments, you increase the knowledge that is available to you to improve your deployments and you are able to take into account the more local needs, the more localised problems when considering where you might wish to put your resources, and indeed what you would be asking them to do when they were there, and what information you would be asking them to do it with. Q94 Mr Leech: And none of these issues can be dealt with through better collaboration in your opinion? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I would say that better collaboration is the second option. Our primary option, our first option, would be an amalgamation. Q95 Chairman: Supposing the Government decided to privatise British Transport Police. Would you support that? Assistant Commissioner Brown: We would still seek to have an arrangement that saw the Metropolitan Police have that responsibility for policing the networks within London. Q96 Chairman: But supposing this was handed to a private security firm rather than a police force. Would that fit in with your plans? Assistant Commissioner Brown: No, it would not. Q97 Chairman: It would not. You do not support privatisation in any way then? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think policing is there for the public good. I think that privatisation of policing leads to all sorts of difficulties, it leads to a different set of objectives. The primary focus becomes the creation of benefit for stakeholders. You become stakeholder driven as opposed to being strategy driven, the strategy being there to achieve the objectives, which must be, both for British Transport Police and indeed London, providing the best policing services to the people of London. Q98 Chairman: The Office of Rail Regulation thinks that the industry could take over responsibilities of the British Transport Police such as patrolling stations. Do you support that idea? Assistant Commissioner Brown: I think you would be reinforcing some of the difficulties that currently exist in terms of the exchange of information and the connectivity between what happens outside the station boundaries, and it would suggest that stations were islands within London that had no connectivity or impact in terms of the greater and wider communities of London. Q99 Chairman: Should Transport for London be given responsibility for the allocation of all transport policing budgets in London, including that bit of the British Transport Police which is involved within the London boundary? Assistant Commissioner Brown: Provided there were some caveats in terms of how they were able to spend that money, and provided that they had to provide policing resources which took account of connectivity through to the rest of London, I would say yes. Q100 Chairman: If you were able to go ahead with what you have planned how would you guarantee funding for the railway involvement of particular officers? How would you ring-fence the finance needed? Assistant Commissioner Brown: It would be the subject of special service agreements, the same as Transport for London and the bus network are currently. Q101 Chairman: And you think that that would be sufficient? Assistant Commissioner Brown: It has certainly worked well in relation to the policing of the bus routes and that provision of public transport in London, yes. Q102 Chairman: If the Government rejects your proposal could this have a negative impact on policing in London? Assistant Commissioner Brown: Yes. Q103 Chairman: And on your relationship with the British Transport Police? Assistant Commissioner Brown: No. Chairman: Thank you very much. The connectivity has been positively amazing. Thank you so much for coming. Memorandum submitted by British Transport Police Federation Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Alec Robertson, Chairman, British Transport Police Federation, gave evidence. Q104 Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Robertson. I am sorry to have kept you waiting. Would you be kind enough to identify yourself? Mr Robertson: Certainly. I am Alec Robertson. I am Chairman of the British Transport Police Federation. Unlike Mr Brown and Mr Johnson, I have never served in the Metropolitan Police force and I have 28 years' service in the British Transport Police. Q105 Chairman: Thank you very much. Did you have something you wanted to say before we start questions? Mr Robertson: No. I am quite happy to take questions straightaway. Q106 Chairman: Is the British Transport Police fit for the 21st century? Mr Robertson: I think so. I think the four reviews in the last five years have come to the conclusion that we are fit for our purpose. Things move on and we are open to change, but I certainly think that all those reviews came to that conclusion. Q107 Mr Goodwill: Mr Robertson, I have a question which I think has been thrown up by some of the other police mergers around the country and which is of direct interest to your members, and that is with regard to pension provision. Have you any information with regard to the relative health of the pension provision in the Met or in the British Transport Police? Mr Robertson: Certainly within British Transport Police we believe that there would be a TUPE so that if people within British Transport Police had to join the Met, or whatever the case may be, we could stick to the same pension arrangements. What difficulty that would create in the Metropolitan Police I really do not know. Q108 Mr Goodwill: But you do not have any information on the funds in reserve for pensions and whether both were equally well funded? Mr Robertson: British Transport Police has a cash-rich fund. The Home Office obviously do not have the same type of situation. How that would transfer across I really do not know. Q109 Mr Goodwill: I think your members might be interested to know. Mr Robertson: They certainly would, yes. Q110 Chairman: I did not ask you whether in fact you support the Metropolitan Police taking control of the British Transport Police. Mr Robertson: I have a view. Q111 Chairman: That is what we are here to hear, Mr Robertson. I never knew a policeman who did not have views and differences are likely to come up. Mr Robertson: When I heard Mr Brown talking about London there, I think he missed a point in that people come into London; they do not all live in London. When they use the trains they come from elsewhere and they go back elsewhere, so if he is talking about London and the British Transport Police, we transport people into the capital and back out when they return from work, or whatever the case may be, so it is not all about London. With regard to the view of the Metropolitan Police taking over London as a whole, you can rest assured, I think, that British Transport Police would no longer exist, and I have to say that for my members that would be catastrophic. Q112 Mr Martlew: What are your views on the privatisation of the British Transport Police? Mr Robertson: Again it goes back to the fact that there has been that much said about British Transport Police over the last six years and, as for any option, we would have to look at it closely. I certainly think that if it was in the best interest of my members I would support it. If it was not in the best interests of my members I certainly would not support it. Q113 Mr Martlew: It is a politician's answer, is it not? Mr Robertson: Absolutely. Q114 Mr Martlew: What are the views of your members on the idea of private security on the stations? Mr Robertson: Obviously, 7 July was a turning point. If the public feel safe in seeing security or CSOs, or whatever the case may be, I do not have a strong view on it. As long as British Transport Police have fully trained, full time officers to deal with crime on the railways, if other people are doing other jobs within that and it makes people feel secure and safe, I would fully welcome it. Q115 Mr Martlew: So you would see them as a helpful addition, not as a replacement? Mr Robertson: It is not a replacement. It is part of the police family. Q116 Mrs Ellman: How do you think low level crime on trains would be affected if the Met took over? Mr Robertson: I think it would be affected. I think the Met have their own particular problems. If there was a call to deal with something of low level on the Underground in Oxford Street and something on the street in Oxford Street, I think the Underground or the rail station would get left alone. They would prioritise and I think the priority would not be low level crime on the railway or the Underground. Q117 Mrs Ellman: What about the funding? What would you say to the Met view that there would be a pooling of resources and that it would have greater resources to deal with these problems? Mr Robertson: I have not seen their business plan. It was just a comment that was made today and until I see that I really do not know where the information comes from. Q118 Mrs Ellman: Have you been aware of any discussions with the Met about problems of communication or co-ordination in policing? Mr Robertson: No, I have not. Obviously, I heard Sir Ian Blair say that their radios did not work on the Underground on 7 July. British Transport Police radios do not work unless we take on Underground radios, and I believe that was open to the Metropolitan Police a few years ago. Q119 Mrs Ellman: So you are not aware of any discussions taking place? Mr Robertson: No. I think that would be a matter for the Chief Officers' Group. Q120 Mrs Ellman: If the Metropolitan Police did take over British Transport policing in London what would that mean for British Transport Police? Mr Robertson: I do not think that the infrastructure could sustain a police force with the small numbers involved in the geographical spread of British Transport Police. I think it would create a massive problem. Closing a gap came out. I did not hear any other police force in the United Kingdom mention British Transport Police or that they would be happy to police British Transport Police. The only police force that has mentioned wanting to police the British Transport Police areas is the Metropolitan Police, so when ACPO make statements that we might not be fit for purpose I find it quite surprising when none of them has come out and said that they want to police British Transport Police. Q121 Mrs Ellman: The Metropolitan Police have referred to problems of connectivity in the relationship between perpetrators of crime and the neighbourhoods that those people come from. Are you aware of any such problems? Mr Robertson: The whole thing would be accountable to the Metropolitan Police but it would never work in the Metropolitan Police area. When I worked in Glasgow we had a close working relationship with Strathclyde Police, and from time to time ----- Q122 Chairman: Only a peaceful place. Mr Robertson: Very peaceful, yes, absolutely. ----- we would rely on Strathclyde Police and they would pass on information. Similarly, British Transport Police has worked hand-in-hand with Home Office forces for many years without any due problems to either force. Q123 Mrs Ellman: The Office of the Rail Regulator has suggested that the rail industry itself should take some more responsibility for policing. Do you think that would be a way forward? Mr Robertson: I think the way forward with that is through the Police Authority. I know that some of the train operating companies are on the Police Authority. Whether they want to expand their role on that is another matter. Almost 50 per cent of the old Police Committee was from the train operating companies and that has been diluted a bit, so whether they want to come back in and have a bigger say in how they run things ----- Q124 Mrs Ellman: Do the operating companies pay enough? Mr Robertson: In my view, no. Q125 Mr Leech: Do you think the way that the train operating companies pay is fit for the 21st century? Mr Robertson: I have always said that I do not believe in the "user pays" principle, and I think I have spoken to every Secretary of State over the last seven years with the same argument. Some pay up, as Mr Johnson said. Some pay quickly; some do not pay so quickly. Q126 Mr Leech: Are you prepared to tell us who? Mr Robertson: I think that is a matter for Mr Johnson. With regard to that, I think the Government can take the money from the train operating companies. They would have bigger clout than British Transport Police. A lot of Mr Johnson's time is taken up with negotiating a budget and I think that is wasted time. I think Mr Johnson has got a role to play in the Chief Officers' Group, not in dealing with budgets. Somebody else can do that. Q127 Mr Leech: Are there big variations in the amount that each train operating company pays? Mr Robertson: Yes, although I have to say I do not know who pays what. The management depends on the service level agreement. Q128 Chairman: Could I ask you this, Mr Robertson, because you are taking the opinions of all your members all the time; that is what you do: you represent them? After 7 July particularly were there specific problems of communication that were raised by your members? Even if it is anecdotal, were there people who said, "We have a particular problem. We could not deal with our opposite numbers. We did not work well because there was a physical or some other kind of difficulty"? Did anybody within your membership raise with you specific difficulties about working alongside the Met? Mr Robertson: None whatsoever; I think the exact opposite. I think it was along the lines that it was a joined-up exercise that worked extremely well. In fact, the Met Federation have also told me that, that they were getting it from their members saying that everybody, including outside of London, worked magnificently on the day and on subsequent days. Q129 Chairman: So that any problems that arose would have been highlighted at a different level because they were not immediately obvious to the serving officers? Mr Robertson: Certainly not, not at that level, not at the operational level. It may be that at a command level there may have been a wee problem but certainly not at that level. Q130 Chairman: Do your members have any views about the requirement for training before they can go on to railways? That must make them a fairly specialised force, must it not? Mr Robertson: Yes. You need to have a track safety certificate before you can go on to the railways. All our officers have two weeks' training at the end of their Home Office-type training to bring them up to that standard and it has to be revisited, I think every two years. Q131 Chairman: Are you aware of any problems at any particular mainline station, say, where your officers are operating within the capital city and problems have arisen with the Metropolitan force on a day-to-day basis? Mr Robertson: Absolutely not. Q132 Mr Leech: Just on the level of training, is there a big discrepancy between the cost of training a British Transport Police officer and a normal police officer? Mr Robertson: I would imagine it would be slightly higher because of that two weeks where they pick up railway legislation and we do the safety training, but that would be the only difference. Everything else is the exact same, whether that be Scotland or England and Wales. It would be the exact same training. Q133 Mr Martlew: On the issuing of a certificate, who actually does that? Is it yourselves? Mr Robertson: It is actually now a software package. Q134 Mr Martlew: But who is it? Is it the Transport Police? Mr Robertson: We have our own trainers who take our officers through it. Q135 Chairman: Do you have any idea what percentage of man hours are taken up dealing with the threats of terrorism? Mr Robertson: I have not the foggiest idea. I think Mr Johnson could answer that one. Q136 Chairman: Do you have a view on whether the department should pay more money for dealing with terrorist problems? When I say "you" I mean your Federation. Mr Robertson: There is never enough money. Many years ago when we had a Police Committee we were starved of resources and funding, and since Sir Alistair Graham has taken over the Police Authority it is a bit more robust, there is certainly more clout and I think things are getting a little easier. Q137 Chairman: Can you see any particular advantage to your members in being absorbed by the Metropolitan Police Force? Mr Robertson: I cannot see any advantages. As I said, the only advantage would be if it was in the best interests of the travelling public and the safety of rail staff. I have not heard an argument yet that gives me that suggestion. Q138 Chairman: Are you inundated with emails and letters from your members demanding to be taken over by Sir Ian Blair? Mr Robertson: No. Q139 Chairman: Did you check your emails this morning before you came out? Mr Robertson: I certainly did, yes. Chairman: Mr Robertson, you have been very helpful. Thank you very much indeed. Memorandum submitted by British Transport Police Authority
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Sir Alistair Graham, Chairman and Mr Richard Hemming, Chief Executive and Clerk, British Transport Police Authority, gave evidence. Q140 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Sir Alistair, would you be kind enough to introduce yourself for the record and also your colleague. Sir Alistair Graham: Yes. My name is Alistair Graham. I am the Chairman of the British Transport Police Authority. Mr Hemming: Richard Hemming, I am Chief Executive and Clerk to the Authority. Q141 Chairman: Sir Alistair, did you have something you wanted to say before we go to questions? Sir Alistair Graham: No, I am happy to take questions. Q142 Chairman: Is the British Transport Police fit for the 21st century as it is currently organised? Sir Alistair Graham: Yes, it is, although there is a need to continue the sort of investment programme we started when the Authority took responsibility for the British Transport Police. Q143 Chairman: How does the structure of the British Transport Police fit in with the Home Office review? Sir Alistair Graham: As I understand it, the Home Secretary sought the agreement of the Secretary of State for Transport to include the British Transport Police in the Home Office review. The Secretary of State for Transport was not minded to do that but did agree with his colleague that there would be a separate but parallel review of the British Transport Police which is currently taking place. Q144 Chairman: Has your Authority considered whether or not it would approve of the Metropolitan Police taking control of the British Transport Police in London? Sir Alistair Graham: Yes, we have, and we are totally opposed to it. Q145 Chairman: Would you like to tell us why? Sir Alistair Graham: We are opposed to it because if the Metropolitan Police Service was to take over the British Transport Police then that would be the end, in our view, of the British Transport Police as a national specialist police force. We think there are major advantages, not only to the railway companies and railway system of this country but to the economy as a whole, in having such a national specialist police force. There would be all sorts of other issues which would need to be addressed but if the Metropolitan Police took over the London part of the British Transport Police I do not see how you could keep a separate police force for the remainder of the railway system. Q146 Mrs Ellman: What sort of communication do you have with the public to assess their view of the services that the British Transport Police provide? Sir Alistair Graham: We receive the results of the National Passenger Survey in which there are some security questions, plus the fact as part of the budget making process we hold workshops with the train operating companies in which we ask them from their passenger feedback what sort of priorities have they for dealing with security issues. Q147 Mrs Ellman: Have you got any evidence of dissatisfaction from the travelling public with the service provided? Sir Alistair Graham: No, I do not. We do know that passengers are clearly worried about security issues and they want a safe environment in which to travel. I think it is particularly interesting the tremendous public response we got after the events of 7 July and a fortnight later in which there was a very positive response to the enormous efforts that the British Transport Police had put in to deal with that dreadful incident. Q148 Mrs Ellman: Have the Metropolitan Police made any approaches for better co-ordination with the British Transport Police? Sir Alistair Graham: Not to the Authority. I suspect, in fact, that the argument for the amalgamation is very much a personal one of the Commissioner for Metropolitan Police because we have no evidence from the Metropolitan Police Authority that they are a major driver seeking such an amalgamation. I have had one formal meeting with some of the senior members of the Metropolitan Police Authority and I regularly, as part of being members of the Association of Police Authorities, meet on an informal level with people like Katherine Crawford, who is clerk to the Metropolitan Police Authority. They have not said, "We would like to try and persuade you about the benefits of amalgamation". Q149 Mrs Ellman: Apart from amalgamation, have there been any approaches that you are aware of for a change in the method of co-operation between the two forces or better co-ordination? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q150 Mrs Ellman: Either in relation to 7 July or in relation to the general operation? Sir Alistair Graham: No, there has been no approach to us. Q151 Chairman: I am sorry, before Mrs Ellman goes on, I just want to be absolutely clear, you are saying that you traditionally meet with your opposite numbers, which is logical and sensible, in the Metropolitan Authority? Sir Alistair Graham: At an informal level, through the Association of Police Authorities. Q152 Chairman: You definitely see them. This is not something that has been raised by the Authority members with you? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q153 Chairman: Not in the last six months? Sir Alistair Graham: No. We had one formal meeting - and I cannot remember at whose request that was, whether it was ours or theirs? Mr Hemming: It was ours. Sir Alistair Graham: We just wanted to clarify, authority to authority, what exactly was our formal position as far as the proposals. Q154 Chairman: Would you just repeat what the attitude of the Authority was to that? Sir Alistair Graham: The attitude of the Metropolitan Police Authority was they thought the arrangements, for example, as far as co-operation on 7 July had been excellent and had worked extremely well. They were not seeking to press for an amalgamation between the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police. Q155 Chairman: How do you interpret that, Sir Alistair? It is rather interesting. Would it be that perhaps one or two chief officers wanted to pursue this but not the Authority? Sir Alistair Graham: I do not have any up-to-date explanation about this. As I say, I presume this was very much a personal agenda of the new Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Q156 Mrs Ellman: If an amalgamation did go ahead, what impact would that have on low level crime? Sir Alistair Graham: I do not think it would make any great difference as far as low level disorder which, as you pointed out in previous questions, is one of the major priorities of the British Transport Police. I was a bit puzzled by the evidence on this, I am not quite clear where any extra resources would come from. It is interesting that as far as London Underground is concerned, we have very excellent relationships with Transport for London. On regular occasions over the past two or three years they have reached agreement with us to fund additional resources to improve security on London Underground. As far as I am aware in the contact I have had with Transport for London they are not pressing for any amalgamation as they are very happy with the quality of service provided by the British Transport Police. Q157 Mrs Ellman: Has anybody pressed for the amalgamation, apart from the Met themselves? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q158 Mr Leech: Can I just come back to the issue to do with surveys of passengers. Is there any evidence to suggest that passengers realise that the British Transport Police is a separate police force? Sir Alistair Graham: No, there is not, we have not even done any separate polling on that issue. I suspect it is not a big issue for the public, they just want a secure environment in which to travel. We do not have a major communications exercise with them to draw to their attention that it is a separate police force, although of course we do have three Passenger Council representatives on the Authority. Q159 Mr Leech: There is no suggestion that passengers think in some way they could be getting an inferior service from the British Transport Police than they would be if it was part of a standard police force? Sir Alistair Graham: Not at all and, as I say, particularly given the incidents of 7 July and two weeks later. We have had a tremendous positive public response to how the British Transport Police dealt with that situation. Q160 Mr Leech: In terms of the expertise that the British Transport Police officers have in terms of their training to do with railways, do you think that could potentially be lost if it was amalgamated within the Metropolitan Police? Sir Alistair Graham: I am sure it would be lost. If the British Transport Police is disbanded and the various elements amalgamated with geographical forces up and down the country - and the train operating companies are well aware of this, which is why they support us in this approach - of course in the amount of training you would have to do for very large numbers of police officers you would lose the economic advantage of having a specially trained national specialist police force. Because of shift changes, and people constantly moving from one job to another in other police forces, the amount of money you would have to invest in training people to deal with the health and safety issues and the commercial aspects of the railways would be very considerable. Q161 Mr Leech: Do you think that if they were amalgamated all officers would have to go through the same rigorous training on the railways or do you think they would keep the trained officers separate from the other standard police officers? Sir Alistair Graham: I have no idea because I have not seen any specific proposal that would spell out what the organisational arrangements would be. Q162 Chairman: Just a minute, Sir Alistair, you do not mean that the Metropolitan Police have not sent you a detailed plain explaining what they have in mind for your police force, surely? Sir Alistair Graham: I am afraid, Chairman, that is the position. Q163 Chairman: Presumably Sir Ian has himself come and asked to see you and explained what he has in mind? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q164 Chairman: And he has not sent you a detailed letter, a long plan, saying, "This is how it would operate"? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q165 Chairman: Nor with the suggestion of how they would replace training in relation to Metropolitan Police officers? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Chairman: How extraordinary. Q166 Mr Leech: Do you have an opinion on what would happen to the remaining part of the British Transport Police? Sir Alistair Graham: I think the only realistic option would be to separate them out into whatever arrangement of police forces we have once this current restructuring has taken place. Q167 Mr Martlew: Just on that point, the extra training would not just be for the Met Police, it would be for all the police in the United Kingdom? Sir Alistair Graham: Yes. If you are going to deal with the health and safety and commercial aspects, you heard the Chief Constable stress the high performance standard, which was very strongly appreciated, all train operating companies mention it. For example, if there is a fatality on the line the ability to get the rail system up and running again I think the most recent target is below 90 minutes. The British Transport Police have a very long record of achieving that performance target. I think it would be very difficult if you break up the national specialist police force for the railway system to keep achieving that target. Q168 Mr Martlew: Can I go to the finances now. Do you think the train operating companies pay enough money to support your force? Sir Alistair Graham: No, they do not, but I would want to qualify that. Since the Authority was created and came into operation in July 2004, they have had to face very substantial increases in the charges that they pay for the British Transport Police, something like 40 per cent increase over a short period of time when inflation has been between two and three per cent. The first emergency increase in charges, which was introduced in the September after the July in 2004, the rail representatives on the Authority voted in favour of that. The following year we had some difficult conversations but in the end we were able to reach agreement that they would abstain on the particular vote, though on the understanding that we would make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport about the future funding arrangements for the British Transport Police, which we did. Then the budget that has just recently been agreed for 2006-07, we managed, once again, some tough conversations, to get unanimity on the Authority for that budget. I do not think we can say that the train operating companies have not positively responded to the agenda that we have set for a proper programme of investment to ensure that the British Transport Police is up to and fit for purpose in the 21st century. They are very unhappy about what they see as the high level of costs for the British Transport police. I have some sympathy with them in that we have obviously had to take on extra responsibilities as far as counter-terrorism is concerned because it is a very big focus for the police. They can understandably say, "Well, given this is a benefit to the whole country, because if there was a serious terrorist attack on the railway system of this country that would damage the whole British economy not just the commercial interests of the train operating companies, should not those counter-terrorism costs be met out of state funding?" Q169 Mr Martlew: You are saying, yes, sometimes you reluctantly agree but there have been indications given to this Committee that some are even more reluctant to pay up. Is that correct and, if it is, which companies are they? Sir Alistair Graham: I do not want to go into the bad debt side of it because we have very few bad debts as far as the train operating companies are concerned. There is no doubt about it, some of the train operating companies whose capacity to make profits is very restricted by the nature of the franchise that they have, do find the charges we have to levy straight off their bottom line and, therefore, regularly make representations to people like myself and members of the Authority about the recent increases. Q170 Mr Martlew: Do you believe that the structure for getting payments is the right one to take the service forward? Sir Alistair Graham: I do not think it is sustainable in the longer term. It may well be once we have got through this investment period, and as a result of reaching agreement with them we have had to defer some particular projects that we would have liked to have proceeded with. I think, in fact, if we had the user pays for a substantial chunk of the responsibilities of the British Transport Police, if we had state funding for the counter-terrorism responsibilities, then I think that would make a very substantial difference to the tensions we currently experience with the train operating companies about the funding of the British Transport Police. Where I fundamentally disagree with the train operating companies, they believe, as part of the review that is taking place that there should be a refocused British Transport Police and that that could come out at a very cheaper level. I think that is a bit of a fantasy which would mean we would not have a serious police force, it would be something of a toy town police force rather than a police force meeting national standards. Q171 Mr Martlew: You are saying the train operating companies are talking about reducing the level of your police force on the network? Sir Alistair Graham: They have put the argument to me that they believe that their needs, as railway companies, could be met much more cheaply with reduced responsibilities. My response to that is can you spell out for me what you want the British Transport Police not to do that they are currently doing, and I never get a very clear answer to that. Q172 Chairman: That is very helpful. In the past, they have not been particularly good about paying up, have they, Sir Alistair, but do you think it is getting better? Sir Alistair Graham: In the three or four years prior to the Authority being set up the level of increases were at a very low level, below the level of inflation, and that was undoubtedly damaging because they had plenty of messages from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary saying that the infrastructure of the British Transport Police was creeping. I got a clear steer from the Secretary of State for Transport that we needed to address these legacy issues which I have attempted to do over the first two or three years of the Authority. I would like to very much pay credit to the Department for Transport for having coming forward with funding for capital funding for the British Transport Police on a more general scale than existed hitherto and also helping with the specific costs of counter-terrorism. Q173 Chairman: They did give a one-off payment, did they not, in relation to that? Sir Alistair Graham: 7 July costs, yes. Q174 Chairman: I do not want to be unkind but the fact that the Association of Train Operating Companies thinks the Government should pay and they should not does not come as an awful surprise to me. Do you really think that in fact one of the things that the Authority ought to be doing in the not too distant future is talking to the Government about the form of funding for any operational expenses that arise outwith the railway system? Sir Alistair Graham: It is an issue we have already raised; I have raised it directly with the Secretary of State for Transport. Every time he makes a public statement on behalf of the Government he reinforces the user pays principle. In the letter that he sent to me agreeing to provide the additional costs arising out of 7 July, he went to considerable lengths to stress in that letter that this was a one-off payment, it should not be seen as conceding in principle that they were going to pay for counter-terrorism costs in the future. Q175 Chairman: In that case could I take you down a slightly different line. What would be the Authority's view of the suggestion that instead of having a proper police force, properly trained, we should go back to the old idea - which might suit the train operating companies - of a private security firm taking responsibility? Would that be efficient and acceptable? Sir Alistair Graham: No, I do not think it would. I think the railway system is too important for this country, and for the economy of the country, to privatise the policing arrangements of the railway system. I have to say, I recently had a meeting, before we signed off the budget for this year, with all the key players of the really big railway companies and we were unanimous at the end that we wanted to retain a national specialist police force for the railways. They were all agreed about that. Q176 Chairman: Did the Authority discuss the suggestion of the Office of the Rail Regulator that there should be some duties taken away from the British Transport Police, for example patrolling the station? Sir Alistair Graham: Certainly the rail regulator has not sought to have any discussion with the Authority about that. Obviously under this idea, which I am sure the Secretary of State is seriously looking at, of a refocused British Transport Police one is conscious that the development --- Q177 Chairman: Forgive me, Sir Alistair, what would you refocus the British Transport Police force on except transport? Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q178 Chairman: I just think perhaps I am missing something. Sir Alistair Graham: No. Q179 Chairman: A refocused transport police, what are we going to focus on, some architecture, conservation? Sir Alistair Graham: No. In my view, because I do not know what is meant by a refocus --- Q180 Chairman: Thank you. I am glad to establish that. Sir Alistair Graham: But I do know it is a serious option that the Department of Transport are looking at. Q181 Chairman: Yes but it would presumably be cheaper in the view of railway systems, we do not quite know what it is but we know it would be cheaper. Sir Alistair Graham: There are models of policing which we know Home Office police forces are looking at, neighbourhood policing, for example. Is that a concept which would easily transfer into a national specialist police force? When you take for example somewhere like Leeds, Leeds Station and the surrounding area as an equivalent neighbourhood could have a different approach to policing. I do not know. These are all issues one should never reject out of hand. I am absolutely clear that there is not a possibility of having a serious national specialist police force and having it refocused to substantially cheaper bases. Chairman: Sir Alistair, you have been extremely helpful. I am sorry we have not involved you in this. I am sure your moral support has been enormously important. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming. Witnesses: Derek Twigg, a Member of the House, Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport, and Hazel Blears, a Member of the House, Minister of State, Home Office, gave evidence. Q182 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister. Would you introduce yourself for the record? Derek Twigg: I am Derek Twigg, the Railway Minister. Q183 Chairman: What are your emerging conclusions of the review of the British Transport Police? Derek Twigg: If it is possible, Chairman, and it would probably answer the question you have just asked as well, I would like to say a few words. Q184 Chairman: You want to say something, do you? Derek Twigg: Just a few words. Q185 Chairman: May I beg your pardon. Please tell us. Derek Twigg: I am sure you will stop me if I go on for too long. Q186 Chairman: I would never dream of stopping you, Minister. Please just tell us whatever you want to. Derek Twigg: Clearly in terms of the review I think it is important to put on record that with the events of New York and Madrid and the terrible events in London in July last year, and of course the review of the strategic police forces around the country, the Secretary of State and the Department felt it was right that at this point we should have a look at the BTP's role in terms of its focus and also alternatives. I am sure you will understand that review is ongoing, so in terms of the amount of information I will be able to give you I will be limited because we have not got come to conclusions yet. What I can tell you is that we are looking to see that we get the best possible policing for the railway and the personal security of those who use it. The options we have come down to are that of either giving the responsibility to the strategic forces or refocusing the BTP. Currently we are spending most of our effort and time on the issue of refocusing at this point in time. That is where we are. Q187 Chairman: Have you framed a clear definition of what you mean by "refocusing"? Derek Twigg: Yes. We want to make sure that we get a British Transport Police force that is fit for the 21st century and the best possible policing we can for the railway, but within that looking at whether we can improve things, whether the focus is right in terms of should it continue to deal with any murders or fraud, et cetera, should it be more focused on low level crime and antisocial behaviour. Also in terms of the train operating companies, as you will be aware, Chairman, in terms of their role some of them have differences and have expressed concerns about the resources they are playing for and exactly what they are getting for that in terms of looking at their role and their needs in the future, not just what the British Transport Police would do but in terms of the funding for that. Q188 Chairman: Minister, may I interrupt to say I am sorry but, it is that old joke, we started without you. Thank you very much for coming. We will come to you in a moment, if we may. Hazel Blears: Okay. Q189 Chairman: Is the status quo in relation to the British Transport Police one of the alternatives you are looking at refocusing? Derek Twigg: In a sense, no. It could turn out that way, to be honest, but we want to look at it in terms of the issues that have occurred in the last couple of years or so, the review of the strategic forces, whether or not the policing from British Transport Police focuses on what are the most important issues in terms of antisocial behaviour, low level crime, and whether or not the resources are best in that area and the way they are set up and the funding in relation to the train operating companies and the other funders. Q190 Chairman: I want to be absolutely clear. Do we both agree that low level crime is frankly what the British Transport Police deal with most of the time? Derek Twigg: They deal with that a lot of the time, that is correct. In fact, I was at an event today and Mr Johnson, the Chief Constable, was dealing with that exact issue with new accreditation officers who have been put in place at St Pancras. Q191 Chairman: So that is what you are looking at. Derek Twigg: Obviously there are things that we all agree the BTP do brilliantly well. Q192 Chairman: I am not trying to catch you out, Minister. When I am being rotten you will get the idea. I am trying to work out what it is that you are using as the parameters for your examination. All I want you to tell the Committee is what you really mean by "refocusing". We have got the British Transport Police, they are a specialist police, they are specially trained, some of the train operating companies are not violently happy about having to pay for them, which is not entirely surprising, and you now say you are looking at them vis-à-vis the way they handle low level crime. We know that the bulk of their work is low level crime. Could you just tell me exactly what it is you are looking at in relation to the work of the British Transport Police? Derek Twigg: Maybe I did not explain properly at the beginning but I will try and you will tell me if I am not doing it, Chairman. Q193 Chairman: It is possible. Derek Twigg: I am sure you will let me know. Because of the current review of the strategic forces, which is clearly something we need to take account of, obviously the things that happened particularly in London last year in terms of the bombings and what happened in July, and also in terms of what they do now, is it the best way to deliver that particular policing? As I say, that may be the case in terms of certain things they are doing but would they be better putting resources more into low level crime, antisocial behaviour and root crime issues rather than other issues that they might deal with? Q194 Chairman: So fundamentally what you are looking at is not whether you will have something like the British Transport Police, which is specialised, but whether what you have got is being used to the best of its ability, whether it is properly funded and related to the job it has to do? Derek Twigg: That is the refocusing work we are doing at the moment. Chairman: Thank you, that is very helpful. Q195 Mrs Ellman: I would like to ask both Ministers what problems have been identified in relation to 7 July or the other work of the British Transport Police that relates to the structure of having the British Transport Police separate from the Met? Derek Twigg: It is not so much the problems that have been identified by that but are there any lessons we can learn in terms of how the policing was ---- Q196 Mrs Ellman: First I am asking the question I am asking, which is what problems have been identified or maybe there have not been any? Derek Twigg: In terms of the role of the British Transport Police? Q197 Mrs Ellman: In relation to the current structure, yes. Specific problems, not theoretical ones. Derek Twigg: From my point of view, I have to say we have not had any specific problems in terms of the British Transport Police but what we want to find out is whether there are any lessons that need to be learned because they do have a very important security role as well. That is where we are at. That is one of the things we are looking at as part of the review. Q198 Mrs Ellman: But there are not any specific problems in relation to 7 July that you are aware of? Derek Twigg: Not in itself that we have identified as a reason for the review. Partly we are looking at whether there are any issues arising from that as well that we need to take account of in terms of any refocusing of the British Transport Police. The issue about whether things could have been co-ordinated better, whether there was an issue around how the BTP responded, all those things will be looked at, but clearly the response was very good on the day and a lot of tremendous work was put in by the British Transport Police. Hazel Blears: Chairman, can I first of all apologise for not being here right at the start of your proceedings. Q199 Chairman: No apologies required, Minister, I am afraid I did take advantage of the few moments I had to seize upon your colleague. I do not get the chance to seize many men very often these days! Hazel Blears: Obviously I am going to agree with my colleague to the extent that there are always lessons that we can learn. I do not think we have got any specific issues that have been thrown up to us as matters relating to structure which we have to address immediately in order to fulfil our capability around response to terrorism. Clearly there is going to be a close review of what happened, were there ways in which communication could have been better, and I think any organisation which tells a committee of this nature that everything was 100 per cent and there was not anything that could be done better would find themselves getting fairly short shrift. Together we will be looking very closely at what happened and whether or not there are improvements that we can make. Certainly the assessment that has been done of the British Transport Police around counter-terrorism shows that there is a commendable level of understanding of the counter-terrorism role at every level of the staff in the British Transport Police, which I think is very encouraging. They have got significant exposure to these risks and, therefore, they are used to dealing with issues whether it is suspect packages, trying to target hard the railways around this, but clearly the railways are a key terrorist target and, therefore, the ability of the British Transport Police to respond properly is really important to us. I am not saying there are any specific problems but I am absolutely sure that we can learn lessons and do things even better in the future than we are doing them now. There is an issue around intelligence gathering for the British Transport Police and making sure that they are able to gather intelligence but also that that co-ordinates with the rest of Special Branch activity and the way in which we co-ordinate intelligence at the centre so that we do not duplicate and have rival intelligence gathering streams but are gathering intelligence which can help us all. Q200 Mrs Ellman: Could I ask the same question in relation to the general work of the British Transport Police separate from the terrorism issue to do with the way they deal with crime in relation to rail. Are there any particular problems that either of you are aware of? Derek Twigg: Clearly overall crime has come down on the railways. There are issues around violent crime, et cetera, but obviously the targets that Mr Johnson has set have been met. It comes down to are there any lessons we can learn and given the review that is taking place of strategic forces is there anything we need to take account of. We want the best possible policing for our railways and we want to try to achieve that. I do not think even Mr Johnson and the BTP would say they are doing everything perfectly, it is how we can continue to improve that and that is why we have been working with them on the refocusing and that work is still ongoing. Q201 Mrs Ellman: Are there any particular problems to do with the current structures in relation to their normal work? Hazel Blears: Clearly the review is ongoing. British Transport Police are accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport and not to the Home Office, and I am very conscious of that. We are working closely on the review and I do not want to trespass on my colleague's responsibility. There have been really good relationships between the British Transport Police and other forces about who should investigate which kind of crime. For example, if we look at murder, which is one of the protected services that we have been looking at in the general review, very often murders will be investigated by the Home Office forces but if there is a specific case - last year there were three murders on the railways, two of them were investigated by Home Office forces and one of them was investigated by the British Transport Police - there appears to be a good accommodation about the right people dealing with the right issue. Q202 Chairman: Since these three murders have been mentioned before, you are not aware of any problems that arose either in relation to the investigation or ---- Derek Twigg: No. As you well know, Chairman, obviously murders can take a great deal of time and whether it is best that the strategic forces investigate or ---- Q203 Chairman: I understand the theory. We are asking you something different. Since these three murders have been specifically mentioned more than once today, are you aware that in those three cases there were problems between the British Transport Police and the strategic forces elsewhere? Derek Twigg: No. Chairman: Thank you. All I wanted was a no. Q204 Mrs Ellman: If the Metropolitan Police were to take over the work of the British Transport Police in London, what implications would that have for the British Transport Police outside of London? Could it still remain as an entity or would it have to change? Derek Twigg: One of the reasons that we are not continuing on the work is because there was a risk that if we took out all the Greater London officers the cost could disproportionately increase. Also, it would put pressure on the rest of the British Transport Police forces around the country and you would then have two different sets of police forces dealing with the railway issues. That was the reason why we felt we would not pursue that option any further. Q205 Mrs Ellman: Could you clarify what you mean by that? What are you not pursuing? Derek Twigg: We have now narrowed it down in terms of our current work on this particular issue either to the work which is basically the BTP officers going out to the strategic forces and dealing with the issues of railways in their areas or we look at refocusing whether there are any further improvements we can make in terms of how the British Transport Police police the railways. That is where almost all of our effort is now being directed on the refocusing of the BTP. Q206 Mrs Ellman: That includes British Transport Police in London? Derek Twigg: That includes all British Transport Police. Q207 Mrs Ellman: In 2004 when the Department replied to the last report that the Transport Select Committee did on the British Transport Police, the Government stated that it agreed with the Committee that "the national railway network is best protected by a unified police force providing a dedicated specialist service enabling it to give proper priority to the policing of the railways". Is that still the Department's view? Derek Twigg: Clearly because of the issues that I have outlined already to the Committee, and I will not go over them, we did not feel that precluded us having a look at the BTP in the light of the circumstances I have described this afternoon. Q208 Mrs Ellman: You would agree with the central tenet of that statement? Derek Twigg: Clearly there is a very, very strong argument to continue to have a strategic police force policing the British Rail network but we want to make sure that is the best possible policing and we get the best possible service for the people who use the railways and that is why we are looking at the refocusing at the moment. Mrs Ellman: Thank you. Q209 Graham Stringer: I think those answers are very helpful, Minister, but I just want to make sure that I understand them. What you are saying in simple language is that the choice is going to be breaking up the British Transport Police, handing them over to all the strategic authorities, or keeping the British Transport Police but looking at their priorities. That is what refocusing means, is it not? Derek Twigg: Yes. Q210 Graham Stringer: Can you expand a little on what change of priorities there might be for the British Transport Police? Derek Twigg: For instance, whether they deal with murder at all and in terms of fraud issues whether it is ticket fraud or other types of fraud. One of the key areas is not just the British Transport Police but in terms of the train operating companies and those funding British Transport Police because some of them are unhappy and not necessarily supportive in terms of the current set-up. If you take Transport for London who have a particularly good relationship with the British Transport Police, the relationship works very well, there is good communication, I would like to see that developed with all the other train operating companies to see whether we can improve it and gain a better working relationship, a better understanding of what the requirement of the industry is and in terms of what British Transport Police can provide within the budget constraints in which they live. Q211 Graham Stringer: The Met have made clear their view that they would like control of the railways within Greater London. I know this is a difficult question because some of the new strategic authorities do not exist but there will be authorities like Greater Manchester that do. Has any other police force said that they would like to police the railways in their area? Derek Twigg: I am not aware of that, no. Q212 Graham Stringer: That is interesting. As part of the option you are considering, if in the future you go for British Transport Police refocused or reprioritised, is privatisation being considered of the whole British Transport Police? Derek Twigg: No, that is not something we are considering at the moment. Clearly we have a public interest in it as a Department and, as you know, we have significantly increased the capital funding for British Transport Force which is £30 million from 2005-06 onwards for three years. We are not looking at that option. Graham Stringer: Thank you very much. Q213 Mr Goodwill: It seems that both Departments have taken a very pragmatic approach to this proposed merger, dare I say in marked contrast to other mergers around the country. Given that as far as both Departments are concerned this merger between the British Transport Police and the Met is dead in the water, do you think that the Government have a responsibility to prevent the Met spending any more time and effort on preparing for this merger which it seems nobody particularly wants apart from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? Hazel Blears: First of all, I think it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of the Department for Transport's review. We are not due to get the recommendations until the middle or end of May. Q214 Mr Goodwill: I think we have had a few signals. Hazel Blears: We may well have had some signals but we do not have the outcome of the review and, therefore, we want to look at those recommendations very carefully. Obviously we are working closely together in terms of the work that is going on looking at priorities. One of my main concerns is to try to make sure that we keep the intelligence not just around terrorism but around other issues to make sure we make those links and keep those links very strong for us. In terms of the Metropolitan Police's position, clearly that is a matter for the Commissioner and the Metropolitan Police Authority in terms of the decisions they make about what proposals they want to put forward. Obviously we will look very closely at whatever proposals are made in the light of the outcome of the review. I think it would be wrong for me here and now to speculate about what the Met should or should not do before we have got the results of that programme. Q215 Chairman: Could I ask you about this business of intelligence because you have mentioned it twice. At what level is there a problem? Presumably the intelligence that is gathered largely by the British Transport Police will come from their expertise on what is on the lines, what is on the stations, the people they deal with. Are you suggesting somehow or other when that is all garnered it does not get translated into the other security services? Is that what is the burden of the complaint? Hazel Blears: No. I do not think there is a specific complaint about it. All I am seeking to say is I think intelligence of every kind, not just in relation to high level incidents but intelligence about everyday matters, is increasingly important in the way we organise policing in this country, whether it is intelligence about antisocial behaviour or all the way through the levels. What I am keen to do is to make sure that the expertise and knowledge that the British Transport Police undoubtedly have in their environment feeds into the rest of our system because that makes us able to target resources in the most effective way to get the best results. That is not necessarily a structural issue but it is an issue about making sure that there is good communication and people are working closely together. I am not saying that is a structural issue that needs to be addressed by changing the structure at the moment, that is why I am keen to see the outcome of the work that the Department for Transport are doing. Q216 Mr Goodwill: Do you think there is an argument that as the British Transport Police are taking on an increasing role in the war against terror that more of their budget should be paid from central Government rather than train operating companies because of the overall benefit to the country rather than just the narrow interests of the train operators? Derek Twigg: As I said to Mr Stringer, we have significantly increased the amount of funding we give to the BTP and that is very important in terms of the way the railway is operating, in terms of intelligence and policing generally. You will remember that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report made some criticism about the IT systems and record systems, et cetera, and they have had investment in terms of radio systems and new cars. There has been quite a lot of investment in that in recognising that. We have also given extra money in terms of the security issues that arose from last July. Q217 Mr Martlew: I am quite fascinated by this conversation. The Department for Transport seems to be saying that we are looking at two options, one of keeping the British Transport Police and not making any changes and the other to disband it and give it across to the Home Office. Have both ministries looked at the possibility of transferring responsibility for the British Transport Police to the Home Office? You have talked about getting rid of it and therefore transferring it to the new police authorities but have you ever thought about just transferring responsibility to the Home Office? Have the Home Office ever thought of taking it over? Derek Twigg: Clearly if you disbanded it the policing for the railways would go to the Home Office on a strategic force level. It is the British Transport Police railway police and we think the responsibility should lie with the Secretary of State. Q218 Mr Martlew: You are saying if you decide to keep it ---- Derek Twigg: It will still remain. Q219 Mr Martlew: But if you get rid of it then it will go to the Home Office? Derek Twigg: That is because it will become part of the strategic forces' responsibilities. They would have to determine this force by force with the Home Office. That is my understanding of it. Hazel Blears: Certainly we have not made any bid to take over the British Transport Police. Clearly it remains very much accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport. Chairman: You ought to take some lessons from the Metropolitan Police, Minister. Q220 Mr Goodwill: I think they have got enough on their plate at the moment. Hazel Blears: Not necessarily as ambitious as them perhaps. Clearly it would not be a matter of simply handing it over to the Home Office. Because of the tripartite nature of policing in this country it would be a matter for the strategic forces and their police authorities as well. Q221 Mr Martlew: Ultimately reporting to you? Hazel Blears: Indeed. Q222 Mr Martlew: At present the train operating companies pay but if it goes to the police forces what happens to that payment? Derek Twigg: If the train operator wants to buy in a certain amount of policing that is what they do by the normal funding arrangements that exist in terms of their local strategic forces. It would not be different from that. Hazel Blears: There has been some analysis done that looks at the general provision of policing because quite a lot of the operators pay their business rates and they are entitled to general levels of service, but if they want to have specific levels of service above that they would need to enter into an agreement for those specific operations to be funded with each of the strategic forces. That is my understanding of that analysis. Q223 Mr Martlew: We have heard today they are trying to reduce the amount they pay and the likelihood is they are not going to take that option. Does that mean we could end up with the local police forces looking after the stations and the rest of the rail transport structure without any more money? Derek Twigg: Part of the work we have done, and you have hit upon an important point, Mr Martlew, is one of the disbenefits that may be perceived of not having British Transport Police as a strategic separate force set up in the way it is, is whether the railway would get the same amount of attention and funding from strategic forces if it went out to strategic forces. That is one of the issues that some people argue would be a disbenefit but clearly we are talking hypothetically. Q224 Chairman: It would be a fairly great disbenefit if you are telling us that the railway system has operational and political effects way before simply being a transport system, would it not? Derek Twigg: I am not really saying that. Q225 Chairman: You cannot have it both ways. If the railway system is something that is fundamental and is at risk because it is an obvious target because it has implications way beyond the business of running trains up and down it, you cannot seriously say if for any reason the train operating companies did not want to pay for it or to have a professional and specialised police force it would not really matter because we would leave that to the Gods presumably. Derek Twigg: I am not saying that, Chairman. Q226 Chairman: Which is almost the equivalent of the Cheshire Police Force! Derek Twigg: That is why we are having the ongoing discussions and work is continuing on the refocusing although we have not come to a conclusion at this point. I tried to explain some of the issues that need to be considered to Mr Martlew. Chairman: Obviously, that is what you are here for. Q227 Mr Martlew: Would the Home Office and the police forces be happy with a situation where there was not dedicated money coming across? Hazel Blears: Clearly at the moment the British Transport Police is largely funded by the train operating companies and it is really important that they make that contribution. That is why I was saying I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review that we are going to get in May because these issues are very important to us about looking at the long-term future, making sure that people are safe on our railway system, both staff and passengers, which is the main mission of the British Transport Police. Clearly we would have significant concerns. We want to make sure that whatever organisation we get in the future is able to provide that degree of security for passengers, staff and users of the railway service. Q228 Graham Stringer: I just want to follow up the questions Mr Martlew has been asking. We heard earlier on that there is a different pension scheme for the British Transport Police compared to the other police forces. There is obviously different funding and different kinds of training. In looking at the option of transferring the British Transport Police to the strategic police authorities, have you made any estimate of the transactional costs of the transitional arrangements? Derek Twigg: That is what we are working on. It is not just that, but if you were to transfer there would be legislative implications which would need to be looked at in terms of the timings and the rest of it. The whole lot would need to be looked at if we decided to do that. Q229 Graham Stringer: I think in the consultation paper on the amalgamation of certain police forces to strategic police forces there were estimates, maybe optimistic estimates, of the costs of the amalgamation. Have you got any ballpark figures for the costs of transferring the British Transport Police to strategic police authorities? Derek Twigg: At this stage no because, as I say, we are still undertaking the review and much of our work is around the refocusing. Clearly I would not want to put in figures that may not turn out to be in any way correct. Q230 Graham Stringer: Have you come across any other difficulties like amalgamating the pension schemes because they are completely different, the retraining of officers? Are there any more hurdles that you have come across? Derek Twigg: These are all things that would have to be looked at if we decided that it would not be right to continue with the British Transport Police. Q231 Chairman: Does the Home Office agree with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's assessment that the Metropolitan Police Service is "not held to account as efficiently and effectively as it could be"? Hazel Blears: No, I do not agree with that assessment. I think that the Metropolitan Police Authority does a pretty good job in holding the Commissioner to account. There are always issues about whether we could do it more efficiently. There has been a consultation around the role of the Mayor in terms of the police authority and whether or not there are too many players, if you like, on the landscape in London in relation to accountability. Those discussions have been ongoing. I think the Metropolitan Police Authority does a pretty good job at directing things. Q232 Chairman: Have you had complaints specifically about too many layers of bureaucracy in London as opposed to elsewhere in relation to the British Transport Police? Hazel Blears: Not specifically in relation to the British Transport Police. The London position is slightly different from other areas in the country in that we already have a semblance of regional government and then we have got the government offices as well. One of the issues that sometimes do cause some difficulties is having those two layers and how they interact, but that is not in relation to the British Transport Police specifically. Q233 Chairman: The boundaries of the Metropolitan Police and London Underground do not coincide, do they? Could you tell us how that would work if the Metropolitan Police Service took over the British Transport Police in London? Hazel Blears: I have not seen any evidence from the Metropolitan Police about how they would propose that should happen. At the moment they are responsible for putting their view as the Metropolitan Police Service, that is not a matter for the Home Office. Q234 Chairman: You have not seen the detailed plan from the Metropolitan Police as to how they would operate if they took over? Hazel Blears: No, I have not, Chairman. Q235 Chairman: Are we to assume that they have simply made a general statement and they have not given it to you? As far as we can gather it seems to have got lost in the post in relation to the sorts of suggestions they want to make to the British Transport Police as well. Minister, have you had detailed suggestions from the Metropolitan Police as to how they would operate differently? Derek Twigg: No, I have not seen detailed suggestions from the Metropolitan Police. Q236 Chairman: What the costs would be and how it would affect them if for one reason or another the rail companies did not pay in the same way? Derek Twigg: No, I have not seen a detailed proposition. Q237 Chairman: You have not seen any of that? Does it seem to you that a great deal of research has gone into this suggestion from the Metropolitan Police, or am I missing something? Hazel Blears: I can only say that I have not seen their detailed programme plan about what the position would be if they were to take over those functions. Q238 Chairman: But they have indicated to you that such a plan exists? Hazel Blears: I am not sure they have even been that specific to me. Certainly I have not had sight of a plan. Q239 Chairman: Minister, would you be prepared, when you are talking about what could be the dismemberment of the British Transport Police, to express some view of what this would do in relation to county forces? As you know, because of the strategic reorganisation of many of the existing police forces they are already in a state of flux and they are not overly happy about their finances. Has anyone discussed in any detail the effect of such changes on the restructuring of existing forces? Hazel Blears: Not as far as the current restructuring programme is concerned. Clearly there would be a very different timescale in terms of the British Transport Police from the current restructuring process that is going on because if we were to get the abolition of the British Transport Police we would need primary legislation to do that. At the moment the restructuring process in the first tier of authorities is in the process of public consultation. That ends on 2 July, I think, and at that point the Home Secretary needs to decide whether or not he is going to make orders of amalgamation and the new strategic forces in the first group, which includes the North West, as you are absolutely well aware, would be likely to come into effect from April 2007. If the British Transport Police, depending on the outcome of the review, were to go over to the strategic forces that would be at a later date and we would have to look again at what the implications were of any such amalgamation. That is very much speculation and hypothetical in the future. Derek Twigg: All I can add is that a lot of our work is going on the refocusing at the moment but if something appeared in the next few weeks that completely changed our mind then a lot more work would have to be done on the areas that you have just outlined. Q240 Chairman: Do you think there is a proper role for the British Transport Police in ensuring that the railways are safe from terrorist attack? Derek Twigg: Absolutely, yes. They do have a clear role in terms of their security and involvement in that. Q241 Chairman: Do you have any evidence at all that their co-ordination with other agencies does not provide a secure railway and Underground system? Derek Twigg: I have no evidence that is the case, Chairman. Whether that could be improved is another issue, of course. Q242 Chairman: Have you any suggestions from any of the players in this particular reorganisation that there is something fundamentally flawed in the status quo and, therefore, automatically it should be changed? Derek Twigg: In terms of security or generally? Q243 Chairman: In terms of security. Derek Twigg: No, I have not, but in terms of what has happened it is right we do review that and see whether there are any lessons to be learned and whether any improvements can be made. Q244 Mr Leech: Has anybody in either of the two Departments seen any details about how it would work if the decision was made to move the British Transport Police into strategic forces? Has anyone seen any detailed plans at all? Derek Twigg: We have not in that sense. If I can speak from the Department, because we have been undertaking the review of the British Transport Police and not the Home Office, there were a number of options and I outlined before why we have discounted them. If we had decided on the Metropolitan Police, for instance, we would have had to have done a lot more work in terms of how we would achieve that but for the reasons I outlined previously we have decided not to go down that road. If as a result of the refocusing work that we are doing now, which is the main part of the work we are doing, we found some major problem and we wanted to go into more detail and re-examine whether we should put railway policing out to the strategic forces, clearly we would have to undertake quite a great deal more work. Q245 Mr Leech: How can you make a decision on whether or not the British Transport Police should remain, if you have not looked at what the alternatives would be? Derek Twigg: We have. As I have said, we have certainly looked at a number of options and I have explained to you some of the reasons why we have discounted them. What I am trying to say to you is that what that has led us to believe is that refocusing is where most of our work should be. It does not mean to say that will be our final decision, but that is where most of our work is. Q246 Mr Leech: No one seems to have the faintest idea what would happen, how the British Transport Police would be merged into the strategic forces. For instance, we have heard this afternoon it costs more to train a member of the British Transport Police because of the specialist training they have to have on the railways, and we are not given any indication whether or not every single police officer would have to go through that training if they were merged into the strategic forces. Clearly there are quite significant financial implications doing something like that. I would have thought those sort of issues would be issues you would have looked at before you make a decision about refocusing efforts, refocusing the work of the British Transport Police or possibly looking at merging them into the strategic forces. Surely that sort of work should have been done? Derek Twigg: We did look at a number of options, and early on we seemed to be able to focus on two, which is basically whether we focus on a strategic force or look at refocusing the current police force. If we decided those the main options we wanted to look at, we would clearly have to do a lot more work on it. Q247 Mr Leech: What you seem to be saying is that really you are just looking at refocusing the work of the British Transport Police, you are not really considering --- Derek Twigg: I think you are misunderstanding, Mr Leech. It has been set out in the paper to the Committee and a number of options looked at in terms of the Metropolitan Police, in terms of strategic forces and in terms of refocusing the current British Transport Police Force. We have looked at that and if we felt at an early stage that was worthy of further consideration, for instance in terms of the Metropolitan Police, then we would continue to do some more detailed work. But we have not. The early indications are that these are the two options we want to look at and what we want to put most of our time and resources into in terms of finding what would be the best particular option for policing the railway. Q248 Mr Leech: But there do not appear to be any details about how you would merge the British Transport Police into the strategic forces. Derek Twigg: As I tried to explain, if in the next few weeks we find refocusing the current British Transport Police is not what we want to pursue, clearly we would have to put more work into looking at the strategic forces. Q249 Chairman: You could help us by telling us which other police forces outside the Metropolitan Police have asked to take over control of transport police in their own area. Derek Twigg: There are none. Q250 Mr Leech: None at all? Derek Twigg: Not that I am aware of, no. Q251 Chairman: But if this is such a fantastically good scheme would you not have thought all those policemen in Liverpool and Cheshire, where we lead all police forces naturally, would have rushed forward with a plan? Derek Twigg: I share your empathy with that part of the world, Mrs Dunwoody. Q252 Chairman: You had better or you will have a short career! Derek Twigg: I would not dare not to! This is the point I opened up with and tried to make clear, when looking at the progress which has taken place, looking at the review of the strategic forces, we believe it is right to review the BTP at this particular time, and that is the reason we are doing it. Chairman: We are just trying to find out who is doing what, Minister. You have been very helpful, both of you. I apologise for starting without you, Ms Blears. It has been very informative and I hope your connectivity will continue.
|