Levelling Up

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the UK Government confirming Moray’s levelling-up bid of over £18 million today. When the Minister wrote to me, he said project adjustments may need to take place. One reason that there may need to be an adjustment in Moray is because the announcement follows hot on the heels of Moray receiving £20 million in the towns fund just last month. Will he work with me and the excellent local council leader, Councillor Kathleen Robertson, to look at the proposals for Moray leisure centre? There is an opportunity to also unlock private sector investment, which would mean more resources coming to Moray for people across the region. Does he also agree that local SNP politicians who were very negative when we were not successful in round 2 will surely be extremely positive in welcoming this investment from the UK Government?

[Jacob Young]

I hope every politician is as positive about Moray and its future as my hon. Friend. It is fantastic that we are funding Moray’s bid today. As he said, it builds on its success with the long-term plan for towns. I am happy to work with him to ensure that the priorities of the local people in Moray are met through both funds. I will work with him and his excellent Conservative council leader to ensure that that happens.

Budget Resolutions

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a privilege, as always, to lead on behalf of Scotland’s national party in this or any other debate.

Anyone watching today’s proceedings or any of the proceedings on the Budget who thinks this was a sensible way to take decisions about billions upon billions of pounds of public money really needs to get out and look at what happens in proper Parliaments in proper democracies where those Parliaments are given a chance to scrutinise budgets for weeks, if not months, and where Opposition parties are invited to put in their proposals and sometimes get them accepted by the Government of the day. Several Conservative Members have demanded to know what Labour would do if this was its Budget, knowing perfectly well that it would not matter how brilliant an idea came from the Labour Benches, or any other Opposition Benches, it would not have a cat in hell’s chance of getting into the Budget, because the single criterion that matters most for the way that a suggestion is taken in this place is not how good it is but what side of the House it has come from. It is no wonder that this place is in such a mess.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he believes the Scottish Budget will take place this year now that his party has gone into a coalition of chaos with the Scottish Greens? Will there be a similar adoption of ideas from the Opposition parties in Scotland?

[Peter Grant]

During the previous time that there was a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, that majority Government did in fact open their door to discussions with the other parties, and the hon. Gentleman’s party was quite happy to take advantage of that. He may remember, in fact, that it was an initial suggestion from his party that led to the Scottish Government introducing and maintaining to this day a record of 1,000 additional police officers compared with the maximum number that ever existed in Scotland under the previous Lib Dem-Labour coalition.

This will be seen as the year the Tories finally ditched any pretext that Budget day has anything to do with the public finances, helping the economic recovery or sustainable growth. Budget day has become purely and simply a propaganda exercise for the Government, and particularly for the Chancellor. That is what the days and days of utterly inexcusable leaks were about—leaks that until 10 years ago would have meant automatic dismissal or resignation for the Chancellor. The Chancellor seems to measure its success not by how effectively it closes the gap between rich and poor, because it does not, or by whether it delivers on any of his party’s manifesto promises—that is on the off chance that anybody can find any that havenae been broken—but on how many favourable headlines he gets in the right-wing press. It is almost as if the Chancellor has worked out how important the right-wing press is going to be in choosing the next Tory leader in a year or two’s time when the present incumbent gets fed up with being Prime Minister and goes off to do something different.

This Government have a track record of spending millions of pounds on pushing soundbite slogans that are utterly meaningless. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) if he has got—[Interruption.] Okay, if he does not want to intervene he can keep his mouth shut. In 2015, George Osborne gave us a “long-term economic plan” that changed, on average, every three months until he resigned. In 2017, we had “strong and stable”, leaving Britain weaker and less stable than it has ever been in peacetime. In 2019, we had “get Brexit done”, which meant we all got done over by Brexit, and in 2019 also we had an “oven-ready deal” that left most of us feeling that we had been stuffed like Christmas turkeys. This month’s catchphrase is “levelling up”. Looking at the detail of this “levelling up” Budget, it is like claiming that you have levelled out the potholes on the road by digging a massive great hole somewhere else in the road to supply the rubble to fill in the original potholes. It is about filling in holes left behind elsewhere in our economy and in our public services by 11-and-a-half years of a failed Tory Government trying unsuccessfully to maintain a failed British state.

The Government want us to believe that they are making things better for some people without making them worse for anybody else. Some people will get a bigger piece of pie, but nobody will have to make do with a wee-er piece of pie. You cannae do that unless the pie is getting bigger, but the fact is that the pie is still much, much smaller than it was when the Tories came to power.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to the Budget:

“For most departments, the budget increases announced today will be welcome, but not enough to reverse the cuts of the 2010s.”

If the best the Tories can say about this Budget is that, with a following wind and a wee bit of luck, they might just be about be able to remediate most of the damaging cuts they have inflicted on us during their term of office, that does not strike me as a cause for celebration. That is why they will not see a great deal of positive responses to the Budget from those on this side of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I know that time is tight tonight, but I cannot let the speech from the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) go without some response. It was lacking much coherence and any credibility. We heard from him that the covid-19 pandemic should have been predicted. His party have been in government in Scotland for almost a decade and a half, and I do not remember at any point, prior to covid hitting, warnings about that pandemic.

As for credibility, I would have had a little bit of support for the hon. Gentleman if he could at least recognise that this Budget delivers £600 million of additional funding to the Scottish Government this year; and that, for the next three years, it delivers an additional funding pot of £4.6 billion each year for the Scottish Government added on top of what they already have, making it the most generous settlement since devolution in 1999. The SNP now has more money to spend as a Scottish Government than any of their predecessors, and it has to recognise that this has been a very good Budget for Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about a local distillery in his constituency and how the Government should look at the taxation scheme to support the employees in that distillery. I hope that he considers that when he goes to the SNP conference later this month, because a motion is laid down in its conference papers right now calling for his party to look at “raising additional revenue by taxing the significant profits of the Scotch whisky industry”.

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Douglas Ross]

I will give way, using my own time, to hear what the hon. Gentleman thinks about the proposal from his fellow SNP members to tax whisky even more.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the SNP policy is that spirits should be fairly taxed regardless of how they are produced, unlike the system that has been maintained in the United Kingdom since the day alcohol taxation was first invented? Does he accept that that is the SNP’s policy as of now?

[Douglas Ross]

I will come on to taxation, because the Exchequer Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench and I want to make my own comments about that. However, there was nothing from the hon. Gentleman, leading the SNP in the response to the Budget debate tonight, about what his party are putting forward for debate at its conference later this month, which would see taxation on Scotch whisky go up. What we have seen from this Government is a fifth successive UK Government Budget that has frozen taxation on Scotch whisky, and that is something that I welcome for the many distilleries in Moray and across the country. There has been nothing from him or any SNP representatives so far tonight about the £172 million being invested by this Government on levelling-up projects across Scotland. From the borders to Edinburgh, from Ayrshire to Aberdeen, those projects will get funding from this Government.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), another SNP speaker today, used a quotation to suggest that he would wash the money coming from the UK Government to deliver these projects. These are projects that have been outstanding in Scotland for years. If the SNP Government had acted to deliver them, they would not be looking for investment from the UK Government, but because we have devolution and Scotland has two Governments, we are seeing the UK Government delivering these projects where the Scottish Government have failed.

Finally, I want to comment on the duty freeze on spirits, which is very welcome in Scotland. We know that there is a wider review of alcohol taxation in the United Kingdom; the Prime Minister announced it at Roseisle distillery in 2019 on a campaign visit to Moray. While the Exchequer Secretary is on the Front Bench, will she reassure the distilleries in my constituency and the Scotch Whisky Association that this Government will be true to their word? In their briefing notes on the Queen’s Speech after the 2019 election, they said that the review would

“ensure our tax system is supporting Scottish whisky and gin producers and protecting 42,000 jobs supported by Scotch across the UK.”

That is what I will be holding this Government to. I hope to see a very good response in the near future.

Rural Scotland: Excess Delivery Charges

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered excess delivery charges in rural Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The word “rural” can sometimes conjure up an image of a far-flung place, but this issue affects many communities in Moray. Although it is a rural constituency, it is also made up of substantial towns, such as Elgin, Forres, Lossie, Buckie and Keith. This is an issue that also affects the city of Inverness, the capital of the highlands, as well as many communities, towns, villages and cities north of Perth. Although we are talking about rural delivery charges, they have a big impact on many urban areas as well.

I want to start by giving a little background on this issue, which I have raised in the main Chamber and Westminster Hall on many occasions, including during Prime Minister’s questions. Indeed, almost three years ago to the day, I led a similar debate in Westminster Hall. It was a 90-minute debate, and the room was full of Scottish and Northern Irish MPs raising concerns on behalf of their local constituents. Had today’s debate not been a 30-minute debate, we would have seen similar attendance by MPs across the north of Scotland and other parts of the country, whose constituents continue to suffer as a result of excess charges for delivery.

This is also something on which I got the Scottish Affairs Committee to have an inquiry. I was pleased that companies such as Amazon came along to give evidence and commit to tackling any issues that were reported to them about delivery charges being added after a sale had apparently been completed. Indeed, with one sale that I reported, the seller ended up being brought to task and punished by Amazon for adding a surcharge to delivery after a purchase had been made. I will mention later the work I have been doing with the Advertising Standards Authority, which has done a lot of work to tackle this problem and to take enforcement action against companies and couriers who add excessive charges.

I would like to praise Citizens Advice Scotland, which has done a tremendous amount of detailed research and work on this subject. The briefing that it provided ahead of the debate sums up a lot of the issues that we face. Research by Citizens Advice Scotland has found that consumers living in affected areas pay on average 30% to 50% more for delivery of goods bought online than consumers in other parts of Great Britain. Sometimes we think this is just about consumers sitting at home and making individual purchases from online retailers, but the problem also affects many small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. The report goes on to say that one in four of the Scottish SMEs that were questioned about this said that they had ordered items online for businesses and were asked to pay an additional charge, so it is affecting our businesses as well as individual consumers.

Clearly, the covid pandemic has increased awareness of this issue. For weeks in the early stage of the pandemic, people across the country were asked to stay at home and go out as little as possible, so many turned to online retailers for purchases. That has led to a surge in online shopping and more parcel deliveries. As I have mentioned parcels and we are in December, it is only right to mention the outstanding work that our posties up and down the country are doing at this extremely busy time of the year and, indeed, all year round. Sadly, unlike in every other year since I have been an MP, we cannot go and thank them in person in the run-up to the Christmas period, but I am sure the Minister and the whole House agree that they do incredible work at this busy time of the year. They have our greatest thanks for that.

It is not surprising that in the early months of the lockdown during the covid pandemic, when people had more time on their hands and were at home rather than getting out and about, they were shopping more online. For people in Moray and other parts of Scotland, however, the ease of online shopping comes with a heavy price: the surcharge they have to pay. If someone has a postcode in Moray, the Highlands or parts of Aberdeenshire, they face a familiar problem. They try to make a purchase, look for a product, browse and then when they put in the postcode or address, they are suddenly faced with an additional charge simply to have it delivered. Now, hon. Members do not need to be experts in geography to know that Moray, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire are all part of mainland UK. They are part of the mainland, yet we are often charged as an island community. Moray is attached to the rest of the United Kingdom in the same way that Highlands and Aberdeenshire are, yet we are faced with charges because some companies do not believe we are part of mainland United Kingdom.



A recent paper published by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre estimated that shoppers had paid an extra £43.1 million for parcels to be delivered in 2020, up from £40 million in 2019 and £38 million in 2018. That is not the cost of the purchases—that is simply the cost to have these parcels delivered to parts of Scotland. That is the surcharge for my constituents and constituents across the north of Scotland.

The report found that the covid-19 lockdown led to a big increase in online shopping, which is not surprising. People had no choice in many cases but to shop online, given they were told to stay at home. Once again, the worst-affected areas were Moray, Highlands and Aberdeenshire. Moray constituents purchasing online paid an extra delivery charge that has mounted up to £3 million.

Unfortunately this is nothing new; I have a long list of constituency cases of people who have tried to challenge these rip-off fees—I will go into more detail later—but many people feel like they are banging their head against a brick wall. When complaints are made to stores or online outlets, courier companies are often blamed. Taking the courier companies to task can be tricky. Often, they simply state that their policy is to charge more for deliveries to certain locations. That in itself should be open to challenge, and I hope that the Minister can look at what the Government can do with couriers and retailers to try and get some form of balance in the charges that they are imposing.

It is not all doom and gloom. We have made some progress in the time that I have been working on this issue, particularly where companies advertise that they say they will deliver for free—no charge at all—or a flat rate everywhere in the United Kingdom, only for a surcharge to be added. Where it has been clearly defined that they offer free delivery or a set charge across mainland United Kingdom, if that is not the case when someone goes to make a purchase, I routinely take up cases with the Advertising Standards Authority.

One recent case involved a constituent who was getting a package from a gin distiller in another part of Scotland. His home is in Spey Bay in Moray, 130 miles away from the retailer, and he was told he did not qualify for free delivery, despite it being explained on their site. However, if he had sent the package to his friend, for whom he was buying the product, in Truro in Cornwall— 596 miles away—it would be shipped free of charge. There is no rational way to explain that disparity. It simply cannot be right.

I was recently passed an email exchange between a customer and a business, and it transpired, as it often does, that the blame for the extra charges was laid at the door of the courier. Again, I raised it with the Advertising Standards Authority, which I am pleased to say responded quickly and has told me that an enforcement notice will now be issued. Citizens Advice Scotland note that enforcement notices were issued to

“almost 300 online retailers during 2018/19”

and that work resulted in a “97% compliance rate.” So we are making some progress.

Sadly, it is not enough, because constituents and individuals are still suffering. People go around in circles trying to claim money back for the extra charges. In one case, a constituent complained that he had been hit with an additional charge of £60 for delivery of a package that weighed less than a pound. In many other cases, people do not complain to their MP; they just grin and bear it, as they feel they have no choice. It is clearly not fair to ask anyone to pay more for delivery of a parcel because they happen to live in the northern half of mainland Scotland. It has gone on for far too long and needs to stop.

Up to now, there have been efforts to give regulators in this area more teeth. In 2018, the Committee of Advertising Practice, which sets the rules that the Advertising Standards Authority enforces, made very clear that it would act to ensure a level playing field across the United Kingdom. It said that companies selling goods online had to abide by its guidance, and it specifically ruled out misleading claims of UK-wide delivery if that is not what they offer. Any surcharges applying to parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland should be clear and up front so that the buyer knows before he or she pays what the final cost will be. That is even meant to apply where there is a headline claim of free UK delivery, for example, but the small print might say something like, “exemptions for north of Perth”. Even in those cases, a company would be found to be misleading customers. The problem is that, two years on, it is still happening and, as far as I am concerned, if a company advertises free delivery or a flat-rate delivery all over the UK, it should stick to that.

Another example is from a constituent in Fochabers who had found what he was looking for and had seen “free UK delivery”, but when he put in his postcode, he was hit with a £75 delivery charge. There are more cases like that. If the companies do not stick to their promises, considerable penalties should be applied. Any repeat offenders should be hit with an increasing severity of sanctions. It is clear that a letter being sent to say that this should not happen again does not do any good. Let us be clear. The industry should not have to wait for Government intervention before doing what is right; it should be able to come up with the solutions to avoid the extra charges. That applies to retailers as well as couriers.

Any online retailer should be keen to keep customers onside. They should not simply shrug their shoulders and say that the charges are set in stone when they clearly are not. If enough companies decide to do something about it, we could finally make some progress.

Likewise, the courier firms could work together to come up with a plan to reduce the burden on buyers to pay unnecessary surcharges. That could take the shape of a shared distribution centre in the highlands that reduces the distance between the warehouse and the delivery address, or a simple commitment to treat mainland Scotland in the same way as mainland England and Wales. I do not think we are asking for too much.

As I referred to earlier, in the past three years more than £100 million in additional charges has been paid by shoppers in the north of Scotland—a huge sum of money. At a time when our economy is struggling, people are losing their jobs and seeing their working hours cut, every little helps. That money could go back into the businesses rather than into paying excessive charges. Let us not allow this discriminatory practice to continue. Let us stand up for all the people who are being ripped off in Moray and across parts of Scotland on a daily basis. Let us say that enough is enough. Let us ask the industry—the retailers and the couriers—to get their house in order. If they will not do that, the Government should take steps to address the inherent unfairness.

I held such a debate as this three years ago on 20 December 2017. I remember the date well because it was my wife’s birthday, so I now have 11 days to make sure she gets the right present for this year’s birthday. I will make sure I buy local in Moray to avoid any excessive delivery charges. By having this debate at this time of year once more, we can again impress on the Minister and any businesses or couriers watching that the practice has gone on for far too long. We have suffered for too long in Moray and parts of the north of Scotland because of the disparity affecting people living in different parts of the country. We can end this practice and, with the Minister’s help and some encouragement from the Government, I am sure we can get these businesses to realise the error of their ways. It would be a cheerful festive message to send out that we are once and for all going to deal with this issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Thank you for stepping in to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to make his really important case. I congratulate him on securing this debate. The issue continues to be important for his constituents and for those of other Members in the similar debates that he has led over the years. He has been a dogged champion for his constituents in Moray on this and other subjects. They should be proud to have someone championing people who live in the highlands and other parts of rural Scotland.

Delivery charges are part of the underpinning of trade within the UK, so I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s concern that some consumers in parts of Scotland are charged differently from consumers in other parts of the UK. I also recognise that similar issues exist for consumers in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to be able to take part in today’s debate, and to outline the progress that has been made since the previous debate back in July 2019. Let me first of all remind colleagues of our general approach as a Government. The Government’s aim in relation to post is to secure a sustainable, efficient and affordable universal postal service. With regard to delivery charges specifically, it is crucial that retailers are up front about those charges, as my hon. Friend eloquently articulated: where they deliver to, what they charge, and what premiums apply, if any. Consumers then know where they stand, and can make an informed decision before they purchase. That is what the law requires.

Our legislation is robust. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 set out that information given by traders to consumers regarding delivery costs, including any premiums, must be up front and transparent before a transaction is entered into. Any consumer who believes that these rules are being breached should report it through the specifically set up deliverylaw.uk website, so that incidents are recorded and appropriate enforcement action can be taken.

A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the Advertising Standards Authority—I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s work with the ASA on this issue—and by the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure businesses comply with that legislation. Where that compliance has not happened, both bodies have on the whole acted swiftly. The ASA has issued enforcement notices to online retailers whose parcel surcharging practices have been reported, and has achieved a compliance rate of over 95%. The CMA has issued a number of advisory notices to the major retail platforms, and I take the point my hon. Friend makes about letters: just telling companies not to do it again goes part of the way, but clearly those companies need to actually change their behaviour, rather than just getting a warning letter. We need to see the results of that. The CMA has also published guidance to retailers who sell via those platforms, and continues to work through primary authorities to ensure improvement in these areas.

On the legal compliance side, significant progress has been made, and our enforcement partners will continue to monitor and take action where necessary. However, the Government recognise that the delivery costs to reach some parts of the UK can be higher, and strongly encourage businesses to, as far as possible, provide consumers with a range of affordable delivery options. To help achieve this, we have ensured that everyone, including retailers, has access to an affordable postal service for deliveries across the UK under the universal service. Through the universal service obligation, Royal Mail delivers parcels of up to 2 kg six days a week at uniform rates throughout the UK. I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to posties up and down this country, in every part of the UK, who have been working through the pandemic to make sure we remain connected even when we are locked down. As my hon. Friend has said, it is a shame that we cannot join them in the sorting office to wish them a merry Christmas and thank them for all their work as they enter this particularly busy time, but this is a good platform to be able to echo his thanks and season’s greetings to them all.

Let me make this clear: it is up to businesses to respond to customers’ needs and determine the most appropriate delivery options for their customers. There are no rules to prevent the differential charging between businesses for deliveries, and I do not believe, for example, that imposing a price cap is necessarily a practical answer.

The postal sector regulator, Ofcom, recently published new information on how this part of the market is operating as part of its annual post monitoring update. Ofcom collected information on the extent to which parcel operators vary the price that they charge online retailers for bulk delivery of parcels to different parts of the UK. The long and the short of it is that some operators do vary their prices, whereas others do not.

The information gathered by Ofcom showed that operators take different approaches to the pricing of parcel delivery services: two large business-to-consumer operations, Royal Mail and Hermes, do not set different prices based on location. However, the geographical profile of deliveries can still play some role in determining the uniform price that these operators negotiate with retailers, especially if volumes are skewed towards a particular part of the UK.

[Douglas Ross]

I again go back to the Citizens Advice Scotland briefing for today’s debate. I am looking forward to attending the annual general meeting in Moray tomorrow, where I am sure we shall discuss this issue. One of its recommendations is that consideration should be given to whether Ofcom requires further regulatory powers in relation to the parcels market, following on from the publication of the recent data on this market. Is that something that the Minister would consider, and take up with Ofcom?

[Paul Scully]

Obviously we work with Ofcom; it straddles a number of different Departments. We will always look at issues with it, as we do with other regulators, to make sure it has the powers to do the job it needs to do.

As I was saying, there are a number of delivery options that businesses can adopt. Some have minimal delivery charges, and others are more bespoke models. A competitive market in delivery charges, which will ultimately help consumers, should put downward pressure on the charges applied by retailers and delivery operators. There are positive signs that things are changing in that regard.

In August, for example, Argos announced that it would deliver large items to more than 98% of residents on the main Scottish islands, bringing deliveries to 41,000 more homes and another 56 islands, including Shetland, Orkney, the Inner Hebrides and the Western Isles. In 2019, Wayfair took the decision to scrap delivery charges for orders over £40 anywhere in the UK and charge a standard rate of £4.99 for orders below that threshold. Those are the types of commercial decisions that will set businesses apart from their competitors, drive competition and lead to lower costs.

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are not complacent. The consumer protection partnership chaired by officials in my Department continues to work on the issues. That goes to the point about working with companies to help foster the necessary competition. I am more than happy to continue to work with my hon. Friend so that we can help, convene, push and shape the conversation. Ultimately it is a free market; we are both free marketeers. However, we can make sure that consumer voices are heard, so that if consumers in his constituency have complaints, and if surcharges are imposed after the event, the consumers’ voice will be amplified and heard, through his work and through the Government, to stop unfair practices.

Alongside the work of the consumer protection partnership, and others, Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post over the next year. A call for inputs from stakeholders will be launched before the end of the financial year and a statement on the future framework is expected to be issued by the end of the 2021-22 financial year. The review will consider issues affecting the broader postal sector, as people’s reliance on parcels continues to grow.

I am unconvinced of the need for further legislation, but my hon. Friend talked about whether there is a need for new powers, and what more can be done to encourage the market, drive competition and make sure we enforce the current regulations and legislation correctly. My priority is exactly that—that robust enforcement of the law should continue to ensure that customers are not surprised by delivery charges, and that competitive pressures should continue to drive down delivery charges, as has already happened. I congratulate my hon. Friend once more on securing the debate and on his further championing of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Stronger Towns Fund

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

No. Again, I underline the contribution that the UK shared prosperity fund will have, and we will set out the details of the contribution for Wales, recognising that we want all parts of the UK to benefit.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

While I welcome the aims and ambitions of the fund, will the Secretary of State outline why he is unable to come to the Dispatch Box tonight to explain how much money will be available for Scotland and to towns in Moray? When will he do that and how much will be available, because that is extremely important for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland?

[James Brokenshire]

I commit to my hon. Friend to see that we set out that detail as soon as possible. I want to ensure that the fund benefits all parts of the United Kingdom and that we learn the lessons about the benefits from the Government’s city and growth deal initiatives. We will set out that additional funding, recognising that England is getting new funds from this and that Scotland will, too.

Windrush

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. The actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) were widely welcomed by the high commissioner of Barbados when he met the Home Affairs Committee last week, but the Home Secretary’s predecessor accepted that there was an issue with confidence in the measures put forward. What does my right hon. Friend think all Members across the House can do to ensure that the Windrush generation have confidence to come forward and to believe that the system will work for them, not against them?

[Sajid Javid]

I will continue to look at what further measures we can take to build confidence in the measures put in place, particularly the hotline and the taskforce. One thing we have made very clear, and I am happy to repeat it now, is that any information provided by anyone who comes forward—whether they call the hotline or come to one of the centres covered by the taskforce—will be used for no other purpose than that of helping them with the issues they face.

British Transport Police/ Police Scotland Merger

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered proposals for the merger of British Transport Police Scottish division with Police Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. We had a slight wait for you to take the Chair, but I know better than most that the match cannot start without a referee, so it is good to have you in your place. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time for this debate, as well as all right hon. and hon. Members who supported the application—in particular, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who joined me in front of that Committee to present our case for the debate. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My wife is a serving police officer: a police sergeant with Police Scotland.

I want to divide my remarks into three sections: the process from the Smith commission to the vote in the Scottish Parliament approving the proposed merger; where the process got to and the pause announced last month; and finally, the next steps and, I hope, the opportunities for the British Transport police Scottish division.

Early in my remarks—before any Scottish National party Members jump up with interventions diligently provided to them by party researchers—I would like to note that the merger of the British Transport police into Police Scotland is wholly different from what was proposed in the Conservative manifesto. I strongly opposed from the outset the SNP plans in Scotland. Our plans in the UK manifesto pledged to protect specialist policing at a UK level by bringing together the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and British Transport police. That is a completely different approach from the one supported by the SNP, which is to rip the Scottish operations out of the extremely successful British Transport police and merge them into Police Scotland—which has itself been beset with problems since its inception and formation as an amalgamation of eight regional forces.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Having sat through the various stages of the Bill at the Scottish Parliament, the hon. Gentleman will be more aware than anyone else that the Scottish Government and Police Scotland have gone out of their way to give assurances that the transport police function and specialism will be preserved even after the merger. What is the difference between that assurance and the assurance given by the UK Government?

[Douglas Ross]

What is different about that assurance is that the Scottish Government could not even deliver it by 1 April 2019 as they proposed. The assurances were so weak that even the joint programme board had to finally accept that it was not going to happen and the services could not be protected as they had said they would be.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is not a fair categorisation of what the board said at all. It said progress had been made in some parts of the merger process, but not in others. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about what is different about the Scottish Government’s guarantee to preserve the police specialism and the functions for the transport police, and the UK Government’s guarantee.

[Douglas Ross]

As an example, the Scottish Government say that they would take the 280 or so full-time equivalent BTP officers in Scotland and merge them into Police Scotland with its 17,234 officers. That would not protect them, because if the officers within Police Scotland who wish to have a specialism in railway policing were first on the scene at a non-railway incident, they would be stuck with that incident right the way through. Currently, if Police Scotland are the first on scene at the railways, they can transfer that to a BTP officer when they arrive and vice versa. They could not do that. That is not protecting the current situation and the good work done by BTP officers in Scotland and across the country.

My opposition and the strong opposition from Scottish Conservatives in Westminster and Holyrood must not be considered as disrespecting the Smith commission and devolution settlement that followed. I agree that the functions of the British Transport police in Scotland should be a devolved matter—I just strongly disagree with the approach taken by the SNP Government.

There were and are other options to devolve the powers, but we know that they were never considered by the Scottish Government. Right from the start, the SNP had a blinkered view on its approach—unwilling to listen to expert advice, which opposed its plans, and unwilling to listen to the views of BTP officers, the British Transport Police Federation, rail unions and rail operators. Basically, everyone with considerable knowledge of railway policing warned the SNP against the plans, but they were ignored and the SNP marched on regardless. It only consulted on its preferred option: full integration with Police Scotland.

That was the first of many failures by the Scottish Government, who were unwilling even to consider alternatives put forward by the British Transport police authority as far back as 2015, which suggested giving increased accountability to the Scottish Parliament and giving the Scottish Government greater power over setting policing priorities. That was put forward by the BTPA, and ignored by the SNP Government, who only consulted on their preferred option.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me whether the UK Government are going to begin to consult on their preferred option, as contained in the manifesto, or whether they are going to look at other options as well.

[Douglas Ross]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is going to speak about the SNP policy that we are discussing today—the debate is about the proposed merger of the British Transport police into Police Scotland—or, as the SNP constantly does, does he just want to deflect attention somewhere else, shouting and screaming, “Look over there; don’t look at our failures in Scotland”? The SNP is letting Scotland down. This is yet another example of its centralisation plans, which seem to work in SNP heads and on a bit of paper, but do not deliver for the people of Scotland.

Every proposal was dismissed by the SNP. With the support of the Scottish Greens, the SNP Government forced through their plans. In the face of overwhelming volumes of evidence showing that this was a bad move that would dilute the service currently provided and potentially put rail users at risk, the Bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament. The plans were criticised by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland for being entirely political. It also criticised the fact that no business case or due diligence outlining the benefits and costs was or had been prepared by the Scottish Government, saying:

“As the decision to transfer BTP’s functions in Scotland to Police Scotland was a Ministerial decision, no single, detailed and authoritative business case which articulates the benefits, disadvantages or costs of the transfer to Police Scotland was developed.”

That is shameful and unacceptable.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Given that the merger will not in fact be cost-neutral, as originally claimed by the Scottish Government, does my hon. Friend agree that stopping it will not only protect the quality of railway policing in Scotland but save money for hard-pressed Scottish taxpayers, who pay more in Scotland than taxpayers in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Douglas Ross]

I absolutely agree. We were also told that the merger of eight regional forces in Scotland into Police Scotland was going not only to deliver a better service but save money. However, the single police force is struggling because of the financial restrictions put on it by the Police Scotland; it is not saving money as the SNP promised it would.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall for consideration. Does he agree that a workable timeline must be set before allowing a safe transfer that does not compromise public safety? Furthermore, the vital role carried out by the British Transport police must be allowed to continue seamlessly for the benefit of everyone.

[Douglas Ross]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. Safety for rail users and our officers has to be of paramount importance and I will come on to that in my concluding remarks.

One of the issues that I raised in the Scottish Parliament, when I was on the Justice Committee, was the personal track safety certificate and what it covers. Every BTP officer has that certification. Would all 17,234 Police Scotland officers have that certificate? No, because the cost involved would not allow it. There is a safety risk if officers who have not received the certification go on to the tracks.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Police Scotland, and it will be very important for the know-how and full power of the police forces to be combined as quickly and efficiently as possible, to ensure that the benefit of knowledge and experience comes together at the right time.

[Douglas Ross]

Absolutely. I will come to the timing in a moment, but there is no doubt that, several years after the merger, Police Scotland is still operating under considerable strain because of it; now is not the time to add to the workload of Police Scotland when it is struggling to manage what it has now.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

Surely the fact of the delay is proof that Police Scotland is in no fit state to absorb the BTP.

[Douglas Ross]

Absolutely. We have to remember that the joint programme board is made up of representatives of the Scottish Government, the UK Government and Police Scotland. At their latest meeting in February, they all agreed to recommend a pause to the Scottish Government. None of them could see the implementation of integration being achieved safely by 1 April 2019.

The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) takes me back to where we are now, which is the pause. We are in a welcome place: the SNP, Police Scotland and the joint programme board all accept that the implementation date of 1 April 2019 will not be met. Gone are the supportive comments from the Police Scotland high command that everything about the proposal is rosy.

I cannot forget the response I received to a question that I put as a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee; it came from Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins. Almost exactly a year ago today, on 7 March, I asked him about the problems we had seen with the merger of the eight forces into one and the ongoing challenges faced by Police Scotland. At that point last year, I was asking whether it was the correct time to force ahead with this merger. ACC Higgins, before the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee, replied:

“To be frank, two years is a luxury, based on what we had to do to bring Police Scotland together, so I am confident that the transition would occur”.

Two years as a luxury and confidence from an assistant chief constable of Police Scotland—all now wilted on the vine. Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has made it very clear, in his remarks to the joint programme board and since, that Police Scotland was not ready, that it was not a luxury to have two years to implement the integration and, therefore, that it is correct that we have now paused.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Given all that, does my hon. Friend think it might be the time for Her Majesty’s Government to consider delaying the laying of orders facilitating the merger north of the border?

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and will come on to that towards the end of my speech, when addressing the Minister on what we could do in this Parliament.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The chair of the British Transport Police Federation said, in the light of the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London, that the merger should be suspended permanently. The fact that he is talking about terrorism shows the significant difficulties that there might be over safety in the merger.

[Douglas Ross]

I agree with the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Nigel Goodband and the BTP Federation have been strong advocates for the BTP maintaining its current form in Scotland, with its strong links with Police Scotland and across the rail network. They are strongly opposed, as many of us in this Chamber and indeed in Holyrood are, to the SNP’s plans for integration.

I have just quoted ACC Bernie Higgins from almost a year ago to the day saying that two years was a luxury. Even more recently, however, SNP politicians have been saying, “Everything is fine. Don’t worry about this. We’ll keep on moving.” On 24 January 2018 in the Scottish Parliament, my colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives, led by our justice spokesperson Liam Kerr, moved a motion calling for a pause, but every single SNP Member voted against that motion.

Not only did the SNP MSPs vote against, but they gave us some great quotes. Rona Mackay said:

“What more proof do the Conservatives need that the merger has been planned meticulously to ensure a smooth transition in 2019?”

She continued:

“It would be preposterous to pause the process while negotiations are on-going, so I urge the Conservatives to stop trying to derail the merger, which will make Scotland a safer and more secure place in which to live and travel.”

Her colleague, Fulton MacGregor, said that

“plans are going as expected and there should be no issue with integration going ahead on 1 April next year.”

Deputy SNP leadership candidate James Dornan said:

“The terms and conditions have been worked on regularly and I am pretty sure that, when they get to the merger, everybody will be happy.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 January 2018; c. 54-64.]

It turns out no one is happy, because we will not achieve the merger on the timescale put forward by the SNP Government. They were wholly unprepared for the problems faced by a number of elements in the joint programme board, yet they were optimistic that everything would be fine, it could all be sorted out and, finally, they could get rid of the “British” from the name “British Transport police” operating in Scotland.

I want to look at a number of other aspects. We have had many useful briefings for this debate, and in particular I welcome the contribution of the British Transport Police Federation. A recently published study by Dr Kath Murray and Dr Colin Atkinson looked at the British Transport police merger in Scotland. It was published just before the announcement of a pause, but it included many useful pieces of information. For example, 83% of British Transport police officers in Scotland responded to the study to say that they were either very unsupportive or quite unsupportive of the merger plans—83% of our BTP officers in Scotland; that tells a story.

The study was also useful for some of the quotes of the respondents, which I want to read out. Speaking about the BTP Scotland merger, one officer said:

“It is being destroyed for political reasons. I am happy with my job and the way I am treated. It is an infuriating turn of events.

It is this political motivation which has angered officers most rather than any other issue.”

Another said:

“I find it incredible that a merger of this size has been allowed to progress without a formal business case outlining the benefits and risks.”

One final quote is:

“The communication throughout has been woefully lacking. Two years of talks; I am unsure what, if anything, has actually taken place.

The vacuum of information is filled with rumour and hyperbole which tends to affect morale.”

Those are just three of the comments made by officers who contributed to that study, but they are reiterated time and again by the British Transport Police Federation, which is standing up for its officers and opposing the merger.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that survey, which will of course have to be addressed, but one of the key reasons behind those levels of opposition was, in essence, a sense of loyalty to the British Transport police as it stands. Does he not agree that the proposals in his party’s manifesto would receive a similar response if there was a survey on those as well?

[Douglas Ross]

I am unsure whether I have given way two, three or four times to the hon. Gentleman, yet he has still not mentioned his own party’s plans, which we are debating today—the SNP plans to merge the British Transport police in Scotland into Police Scotland. He only wants to ask about the Conservative plans; perhaps he should propose a debate on them to the Backbench Business Committee. I would gladly join him in Westminster Hall to debate those proposals, but today we are debating his party’s plans—dangerous plans for merging British Transport police into Police Scotland. We should focus our remarks on how damaging those plans are to police officers in Scotland, rail users in Scotland and indeed the operators.

The lack of a financial case has been highlighted a number of times. When I was on the Justice Committee, we concluded that the supporting financial memorandum did not provide enough detail on the expected cost of integration or on who should pay. We said at the time that that was unacceptable, and again the Scottish Government did not respond with the information required.

Another huge issue for the federation and officers was terms and conditions: the so-called triple lock that was promised by Michael Matheson as Justice Secretary and Humza Yousaf as Transport Secretary. There is a real vacuum on information available to our officers, who potentially were just 13 months from the merger—from leaving the force that they joined and were proud to serve in, to be merged into Police Scotland—yet still had no concrete detail on pay and conditions and on terms and conditions. Again, they have rightly felt let down by the Scottish Government in their negotiations.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On jobs, pay, conditions, and terms and conditions, it was actually guaranteed that there would be no jobs lost; terms and conditions were maintained, and there will be no pension issues arising from either retired, deferred or current British Transport police officers transferred across.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning pensions, because that is exactly what I was about to come on to. In the Public Gallery, we have members from the National Association for Retired British Transport Police Officers. What consultation did they have with the Scottish Government or the joint programme board? Zero. Retired officers, who will be impacted, were not consulted, included or even recognised by the Scottish Government in the merger proposals. Those officers have serious concerns, which include that they understood that the proposal was for Scottish members to be moved from the main funds to a newly segregated Scottish fund. That is likely to amount to around 250 serving officers, and probably about 200 retired officers, affected, without the courtesy of being informed of how many members in Scotland would come under the proposal. That will create almost immediately a closed fund: at one end, the number of serving officers will reduce each year due to retirements; at the other, retired officers will stop taking their pensions. Very quickly, there will be no new money coming in.

I would be grateful if SNP Members responded to the many concerns from the National Association for Retired British Transport Police Officers on that point, because they have never been answered by the Scottish Government through the joint programme board or at any opportunity in the Scottish Parliament. Such uncertainty is unacceptable for men and women who have served this country with great dignity and service, but are being left in the lurch by the SNP.

There are some positive developments. I said at the beginning that I welcome the fact that the SNP Government have paused these plans. We called for that in January; the joint programme board agreed it in February, and the SNP Government have finally listened. The Deputy Chief Constable designate of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, welcomed the delay and made no commitment at the most recent Scottish police authority board. He said that

“we will be reassessing in the coming months what the challenges and options are, and will then report back to Government”.

I took that as a very welcome signal from the top of Police Scotland that it is not simply pausing, but looking at all other options.

It is also extremely welcome that the British Transport police integration will be reviewed by Audit Scotland as part of its annual review. Proper scrutiny of the plans has been missing throughout this process, to judge how things were progressing as we went along. That intervention by Audit Scotland is welcome, but we must ensure that any progress, or lack of it, is highlighted at the correct times.

I am grateful that we have the UK Minister here; I think the hon. Member for East Lothian will agree that much of the concern from the SNP at the Backbench Business Committee was, “This has nothing to do with Westminster; you devolved these powers in 2016.” The SNP Member on the Backbench Business Committee told us that we should not debate it here. When I raised the issue in business questions or with the Prime Minister, SNP Members in the House of Commons shouted me down because they did not want it discussed in Westminster. But it is right that this issue is discussed in Westminster, because, as was said in an intervention, the UK Government still have to lay the orders that are scheduled for this autumn. I hope the Minister confirms that those orders will be paused, because of the pause in Scotland.

We do not devolve and forget. It is right that elected Members from Scotland in this place continue to look at the merger of British Transport police into Police Scotland. It is also right that peers in the other place tabled a motion of regret on this very point. Indeed, as I have said a number of times, this issue has been debated as recently as January in the Scottish Parliament. Both Parliaments are right to raise it and to discuss and debate it.

[Ian Murray]

There is a role for this Parliament, and not only for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman stated, as there will be a consequence for the British Transport police, too, when the Scottish section is taken away. There are no railway stations on the Scottish border. Therefore, transport police from England will have to travel beyond Carlisle and beyond Berwick, through the Scottish border, when that is not their responsibility.

[Douglas Ross]

Absolutely. That was highlighted a number of times when the issue was debated in the Scottish Parliament, and it has been included in almost every briefing that we have received. If we end up with the SNP proposal and the status quo here in the rest of the UK, potentially two different forces will be investigating crimes on the same line. Not only is that confusing to rail users and consumers, but it will lead to duplication and misunderstanding, which will lead to a poorer service for Scottish rail users. We should not accept that.

Let us not just pause this process; let us restart it. Let us go back and look at all the options, to ensure that everyone is considered and every option listened to. When I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, she made it clear that she did not believe that this Government should devolve and forget. She also made it clear that passenger safety must come first in any decision making. That has not happened so far, which is why the pause is welcome and why we must look again from the beginning, to ensure the best outcome for BTP officers both current and retired, for rail operators and for everyone who uses our rail services in Scotland and across the UK.

I will take my final words from the study by Dr Kath Murray and Dr Colin Atkinson, which sums up the issue better than anything else. An officer who looked at the plans said:

“It quickly became very clear that dissolving BTP Scotland as opposed to devolving BTP Scotland was going to take place…With no career future in sight, I decided to leave, but long service, conscience and pride in what we have achieved so far means I will stay until the last day. Leaving the best crime and justice legacy of BTP Scotland is important to me. My name will be on it at handover.”

I hope that that officer will continue to serve BTP in Scotland, because with this pause he can continue longer in the force he joined, the force he enjoyed working with and the force in which he took great pride in protecting the people of Scotland and the UK on our railways.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 11 o’clock. As there are five Members who wish to speak, I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. That allows some leeway for interventions, but if there are too many, I am afraid that the last speakers will not be allowed the full five minutes. I call Ian Murray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on bringing the debate to the Chamber. This is clearly an issue that he feels passionately about—and quite right, too.

I start by paying tribute to the officers and staff of the British Transport police for their dedicated service and hard work in making safe the journeys of millions of passengers every day—not just on the rail network, but on services such as the London underground, docklands light railway, Emirates air line, Glasgow subway and others.

The officers of the British Transport police have been involved in some of the most difficult and dangerous incidents and policing operations in living memory, including the 1987 King’s Cross underground fire; dealing with numerous IRA bomb threats; rail crashes at Southall, Paddington, Hatfield, Potters Bar and Selby; and the response to the 7/7 terror attacks on underground trains near Edgware Road, King’s Cross and Aldgate. Whatever our views are on the future structure of transport policing, we are all united in offering our thanks to those officers and staff.

Although the British Transport police draws its authority from an Act of Parliament from 2003, it can trace its history back to 1830, allowing it to claim to be one of the world’s oldest police forces. Its history is also one of numerous reinventions and reorganisations to meet the challenges of the times. In the same way, each of the Governments of the UK are called on to make sure transport policing is prepared for current and future challenges. These are challenging times—or, as the British Transport police authority’s 2013 plan put it,

“a period that will require unprecedented change in railway policing”

to provide exceptional service quality at reduced cost.

Different proposals have come forward. As we have heard, in last year’s elections Conservative MPs across the UK stood on a manifesto that included the pledge:

“We will create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure such as nuclear sites, railways and the strategic road network.”

In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan commissioned a review by the Labour peer Lord Harris of Haringey into London’s ability to deal with a terrorist attack. Noting that the Home Office is currently exploring options for merging certain national policing functions, his lordship reported that

“if such changes are being considered, it is important that the benefits of fully integrating the MPS and the underground policing functions of the BTP are considered at the same time.”

The outgoing Met Police Commissioner said there was a “good argument” for a merger, because the current set-up is “confusing” and such a merger could achieve “improved operational effectiveness” in responding to terror attacks.

[Douglas Ross]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that the examples he has cited from other parties in the UK are quite different from the SNP’s proposal for Scotland—to merge a specialist force into Police Scotland, which itself is a relatively new body still struggling with its own merger of the eight regional forces into one?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Of course there are differences between the various merger plans, but a variety of different institutions and Governments in the United Kingdom are having to make changes to how transport policing works. Indeed, the possibility flagged up in Lord Harris’s report is of integrating the specialist British Transport police on the underground into the more general Metropolitan Police Service.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have decided that policing and public safety are best served by merging the recently devolved British Transport police into Police Scotland. That decision was debated in great detail in the Scottish Parliament, including by the hon. Member for Moray, but ultimately the Scottish Parliament backed that decision, passing the Railway Policing (Scotland) Act 2017, which is the first step in making that happen.

Without raking over old coals again, I do think that was the correct decision. Through the merger, the assets, resources and range of skills of the second-largest police force in the United Kingdom will be deployed routinely, rather than on request, on rail transport policing, just as for our roads, seaports, airports and border policing. That, together with clear assurances from both the Scottish Government and Police Scotland that specialist railway policing functions and the skill set of our transport police will be preserved after integration means that the merger’s objective is to not just maintain but enhance safety and security standards on railways in Scotland.

All those arguments are mirrored in Lord Harris’s report to Mayor Khan. Given the developments at the Home Office and the Conservative Government’s proposals, without the Scottish Government’s decision we might have ended up being the only part of the United Kingdom with a stand-alone transport police service, which would not have made much sense. It is not clear whether Conservative Members are arguing for that today.

Rather than reopen that argument, our task is to ensure that the considerable challenges of the merger are overcome, and that the inevitable and legitimate concerns and uncertainty for staff are addressed as thoroughly as possible. That is why a joint programme board was established. It was always the case that the timetable for the merger could change as progress was reviewed. While progress has been made in some areas, the board has recommended that the merger target date be extended beyond April 2019. That is regrettable, but it is right that the timescale is changed rather than the merger attempted at an impossible pace.

Meanwhile, Police Scotland has provided assurances that the right of any BTP member transferred to police the railway environment until they retire will be respected. There have been detailed discussions between the Scottish Government, the British Transport Police Federation and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, and a guarantee has been pledged that secures jobs, pay and pensions through the course of integration.

Despite the picture that has been painted, there has been constructive engagement among railway operators, the Scottish Police Authority, Police Scotland and the Government. Unlike at present, a railway policing management forum is to be placed on a statutory footing to ensure rail operator engagement and accountability, and tasked with reaching agreement on the service, performance and costs of railway policing in Scotland. There has been positive engagement with the Transport Department at Westminster, where statutory instruments will be required.

I acknowledge that this has been and will be a challenging period for the British Transport police and current and retired staff. However, I believe this ultimately to be the best option for transport policing in Scotland—in fact, it is almost the only option. I trust that all parties involved will continue to work to make the transition as smooth as it can be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

No; I will see if I have time near the end of my speech.

We are debating an important matter, which the Scottish Government are trying to deal with. It is clear that there are concerns within the Scottish division of the British Transport police about the proposals, and the claim that there are concerns among staff members cannot be refuted. We have to take the concerns seriously, given that we are talking about valued police officers who provide vital services, keeping us safe. Staff morale and welfare in relation to stress or concerns is of utmost priority. I think that that is what led to the current pause. However, even when those factors are taken into account, they do not justify the complete policy U-turn that most Members of other parties have called for.

[Douglas Ross]

To take the question away from what Opposition parties say, Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone said at the last Scottish police authority board meeting that we should look at options, not only at the merger that has been paused. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with Opposition politicians, does he agree with Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone?

[Alan Brown]

He obviously feeds into the joint programme board that will be developed; but it depends what he means by “options”. It could be timescales and how the integration goes ahead.

The Smith commission recommended the devolution of the transport police. The SNP Government submission at that point made it clear that their planned governance mechanism would be to incorporate the British Transport police division into Police Scotland. No opposition party responded to the consultation on British Transport police integration, so I have to ask what their concerns were previously. In reality, following the devolution of the British Transport police, the Scottish Parliament approved the integration proposals in June 2017. The majority of the Justice Committee endorsed the proposals; as I said, it was the Scottish Parliament that agreed to them, not simply the SNP Government. The SNP does not have a majority at Holyrood.

Page 44 of the Conservative manifesto for the UK general election in June stated:

“We will create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure”.

It is clear that the UK Government propose to merge those specialist areas into one body. There may be a justification for that, but it still means that the Scottish division of the British Transport police would be left as an isolated railway division, separating the forces anyway. The UK Government still want their own single force.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East mentioned, the staff are highly motivated people who clearly enjoy their roles. They have clearly developed a loyalty to the British Transport police. That is a good thing, and it helps us to understanding some of their concerns, too. If they have worked for a long time in a division that they know to be high-performing, clearly there will be natural resistance to change. It is not directly comparable, but in my career I worked through the mergers of Strathclyde Sewerage, with the incorporation of the water division and the West of Scotland Water and Scottish Water mergers. At no point, as an employee, was I in favour of any of the mergers or changes, but once they went ahead there was never a desire to look back. I am confident that the same will happen once the merger we are debating goes ahead and there is a high-performing integrated police unit.

As to concerns about terms and conditions, I said earlier that there was a triple-lock guarantee to secure the jobs, pay and pensions of railway policing officers and staff in Scotland. There has been ongoing consultation with representatives of the British Transport Police Federation and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Admittedly, some staff members clearly felt that there had not been enough communication, but that has now been addressed, and hopefully their concerns will be allayed, especially by the guarantees on terms and conditions. Again, the delay should help allay those concerns and allow the communication process to clarify things.

Some of the respondents to the staff survey were concerned about the loss of the specialism. However, there are plans to retain a specialist railway department and I hope that in due course that will prove to be the correct working arrangement and will maintain the specialism. Ultimately, the integration will provide a single command structure, with seamless access to wider support facilities and specialist resources. It will also ensure that railway policing in Scotland is accountable to the people of Scotland through the SPA and the Scottish Parliament. The integration can be used further to enhance the safety of passengers and railway staff. Some British Transport police staff have also recognised that there could be enhanced promotion and learning prospects within a wider Police Scotland. Concerns have been expressed about the integration of the IT systems, and clearly it must be done properly, but an integrated IT system must be an operational advantage in the bigger picture.

There is an argument that seamless cross-border working happens at present. Leaving aside the fact that the UK Government want to create their own national infrastructure force, it is clear that cross-border working happens with Police Scotland and other police forces now—particularly with counter-terrorism. If police from different police forces work on areas of that kind on a cross-border basis now, surely that can continue in the new set-up.

Police Scotland was mentioned in passing, and I should point out that it is being protected, budget-wise, in real terms. It has 1,000 more officers than in 2007. The fantastic work that its officers do needs greater political support, not to be drowned out by high-level politicking. Police Scotland performs well in its day-to-day fight against crime, which is at an all-time low in Scotland but is rising in England and Wales. The current D division employees of the British Transport police do a fantastic job, and I am confident that integration can be made to work well, and will prove the correct model in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

First, I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the way you have chaired this robust but respectful debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney). I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for their contributions, particularly the Minister.

I have to pick up on a couple of points from the speeches made by Scottish National party Members, which I have to say were disappointing. They mentioned that terms and conditions had been progressed. This is an issue that we have considerable concern over, but SNP Members seem quite happy. However, their own Justice Minister in Scotland, Michael Matheson, said that the pause would allow extra time to allow more engagement with the BTP Federation on pay and conditions. Even their own Justice Minister in Scotland does not think they have gone far enough on that.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned IT and how that would be a positive of the merger. However, the Rail Delivery Group, in its briefing for the debate, said that the failure to progress the implantation of ICT systems was one of the biggest hazards of the merger. It went on to say that discussions suggest that the earliest an equivalence system in place would be in April 2021—two years beyond the proposed April 2019 date, which has fortunately been paused.

We are all fortunate in Scotland to have the strong influence of BTP officers in our constituencies. In my constituency of Moray, they were very active during the recent construction of the new Forres railway station. I welcome the support that we have had from pretty much across the Chamber for the pause to now be used as an opportunity to consider options going forward. I am disappointed that SNP Members trotted out the party mantra, unwilling to look at alternative options. However, there are options, and we are in a pause, so we should look at them. They would allow us to respect the devolution settlement and the views of experts.

I will use my final words to praise the commitment, dedication and expertise of British Transport police officers, and indeed all Police Scotland officers. Their unstinting service keeps us safe across Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered proposals for the merger of British Transport Police Scottish division with Police Scotland.

Public Transport: Boxing Day 2018

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[John Grogan]

I accept that the spirit of enterprise should be there, and I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman before I sit down. I will certainly take up his invitation—it will be one of the highlights of my parliamentary year to come to such an august body.

I do not want to adopt a particularly party political approach, but I would make a gentle reflection to both Front Benchers—it is a great pleasure to see the shadow Minister for Rail, my fellow Yorkshire MP and hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in the debate, and I am glad she is taking an interest. There has been a tendency, as we might expect, that when parties are in opposition, they draw attention to this problem. I spoke to the office of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) earlier today and pointed out that I would gently draw attention to his quote from 2008, where he said:

“Thousands of families travel the length and breadth of the country to visit relatives and loved ones on Boxing Day. But yet again this year the railways will grind to a halt, forcing people onto gridlocked motorways… Labour just do not get how important the railway is to people at Christmas-time.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) has rightly mentioned that quote every Boxing day since he has been in office, and rightly asks for progress. However, I have not yet seen either Front-Bench team say that we definitely will make progress. However the railways are owned, and whether or not the major franchises come back into public ownership under a Labour Government, I hope a commitment can be made to Boxing day transport. I hope both parties can commit themselves to that.

I said there was potential good news for Boxing day 2018. That is largely concentrated in the north of England. For the past three years, Merseyrail has run a service. That shows the power of devolution. Merseyrail has a particularly close relationship with the Mayor of Liverpool and the councils on Merseyside, which have a greater consultative role in relation to the terms of the franchise and so on.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I am interested in this issue, coming from a Scottish perspective. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there are some services on Boxing day in Scotland, but I get many complaints from my Moray constituents, including this year, that the service and the number of carriages are so reduced that the passenger’s experience is not great. Even though we have a service, it is very limited, with very few carriages, and ScotRail does a lot of maintenance on the railways on Boxing day because of the limited services, so there are many delays. Although there is devolution and there are some services in Scotland and other parts of the country on Boxing day, does the hon. Gentleman agree that those should be better services to ensure that people who choose to use the railways on Boxing day have a good experience?

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. That is a speech. I call John Grogan.