Oral evidence: Home Office performance: progress review, HC 1182

Oral evidence, 27 June 2018.

Witnesses

Sir Philip Rutnam, Stephen Webb and Paul Lincoln.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Public Accounts Committee. We are here for a recall session with the Home Office about a number of policy issues. I think we have alerted you to all of them. We are hoping to ask you some questions on modern slavery and understand that you may not be fully briefed on that, but we will get to that point later. We have given you notice of some of the issues we want to raise. Before I go into that, there are a couple of items that have recently been in the news, which you will have picked up. One concern is about the long queues at Heathrow, with criticism from some of the airlines and so on, and the closure of the e-gates. Presumably, that has come across your desks, Mr Rutnam and Mr Lincoln. I should introduce you and will do so in a moment. What have you got to say about that? Is it a one-off or is it something that you are worried might continue over the summer?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I will say something about that and then pass to Paul Lincoln, who runs Border Force. It is obviously a real concern. It is connected to a pattern in which travel to the UK has been rising, particularly travel from non-EEA countries, which probably partly reflects the exchange rate and the attractiveness of the UK as a tourist and business destination. Non-EEA travellers at present take longer to process than EEA travellers. That puts extra burden, particularly at Heathrow, which has a high proportion of those travellers. We are doing everything we can. Heathrow is—and has been—a challenging operating environment for a number of reasons. We are doing everything we can, including putting significant additional resource in from what is known as the surge capacity which is hosted—held—for the whole of Government by HMRC. I am afraid I cannot say that there will not continue to be a challenge over the summer but I want to reassure the Committee that we are doing everything we can to mitigate those effects. That includes working very closely with both the airlines and the airport operator, both of whom through their operating procedures can make a significant difference to the challenge at the border. But Paul should add something.

Paul Lincoln

Let me expand on those numbers, for example. The difference in passengers coming into the UK last year went from 130-odd million to 137 million and the difference in non-EEA nationals was a 3.7 million increase, of which 2 million of those were at Heathrow alone. That is a significant number of additional people, which in some ways is a good problem for the country to have, but it does create some issues, as has been described. Those figures translate, broadly speaking, to 40,000 people a week at Heathrow who are not processed through our e-gates. As the Permanent Secretary said, we are working very closely with Heathrow. I was there last week and will be back in a couple of weeks to discuss the matter with the Heathrow leadership group, which includes the Heathrow operator as well as the major airlines there. In addition, we are putting in the region of 200 additional staff into Heathrow over the summer. We work very closely on the issues on a tactical level. We speak to them on a daily basis about how we might best schedule, and we talk around how we might detail with the carriers to make the passenger journey smoother, including trying to ensure that those people who come from the EU, who might use the e-gates but otherwise decide to travel on their ID cards, would ideally come on passports and would be let through. The other piece of context is that the Border Force officers at Heathrow do not work in a vacuum just trying to process passengers. They do a significant amount of security work. We have seen a record number of referrals on counter-terrorism, given the threat, as well as a record number of referrals on modern slavery. We have also made some significant seizures of drugs and other items.

Chair

You are saying that more people coming through are of interest to you because of their potential risk.

Paul Lincoln

Yes they are.

Chair

Have you got any numbers?

Paul Lincoln

More people have been referred. In the past year we referred about 3,500 people on counter-terrorism referrals and we made a significant number of referrals for potential victims of modern slavery.

Chair

What is the rate of increase on that, or volume increase?

Paul Lincoln

I do not have the detail of that increase but I am sure we could write to the Committee with the comparison.

Chair

That would be helpful. That is obviously an important issue. It does raise questions. Are you doing any different checks? Why are more people of interest coming through? Have you raised the level of check that you are doing?

Paul Lincoln

We take the threats very seriously. We work with our intelligence partners. When there are people who are on our watch list we need to intercept them. The volume is also a proportionate issue.

Chair

So it is really because more people are coming.

Paul Lincoln

And, of course, we have been encouraged, quite rightly, by the Prime Minister and others to ensure that we are doing our utmost with regard to modern slavery. We have specific legal safeguarding responsibilities under section 55 of the 2009 Act, which require us to safeguard children.

Chair

Do you still operate Operation Paladin at Gatwick, which was to look at children being trafficked?

Paul Lincoln

If we identify children who are being trafficked, we take that very seriously and, of course, do our best.

Chair

What is it called? It used to be called Operation Paladin.

Paul Lincoln

We have a series of operations, the names of which do sometimes change, when we do intensifications to support the National Crime Agency and others. Sometimes they will be around modern slavery and we will target particular flights, for example.

Chair

One of the things in the Report was that the e-gates are not always working. Have you got any comments about that and whether that is the case? That would obviously speed it up. If you can’t get through an e-gate, you join the main queue and that slows it down.

Paul Lincoln

The average time for passage through e-gates at Heathrow is a small number of minutes—under five minutes is the average journey. The opening of that is scaled to the number of people who are likely to use those gates. The reason we do that is because we would move people from the other desks who would otherwise process people to come through. It is true that the queues may look large in the halls as people go through. Occasionally people will tweet a picture of the queues in those halls.

Chair

We know that; we have seen that.

Paul Lincoln

The actual processing time of people going through those queues is a small number of minutes.

Chair

Okay, but are the e-gates working?

Paul Lincoln

Yes, they are.

Chair

So the reports about frequent closures—the closure is simply because you are moving resources somewhere you can say it is right for them to be, so it is not a malfunctioning.

Paul Lincoln

It is not a malfunction.

Sir Philip Rutnam

It is perhaps important to be clear: having more e-gates operational only benefits queueing times for the passengers who can go through the e-gates—

Chair

With the chipped passports.

Sir Philip Rutnam

—who are typically the EEA passengers. Actually, we are generally within the SLA or very close to the SLA for EEA passengers. The challenge is on non-EEA passengers.

Chair

It is interesting that you talk about this increase in volume as though it is a surprise, yet you get data before people board the aircraft, that comes through the centre in Stockport. You are watching all that information through. Surely, Mr Lincoln, you must have some agility in the service, to move people from one airport to another or from elsewhere in the system, to make sure that you are staffing the gates appropriately.

Caroline Flint

Also, presumably, in terms of people who have had to apply for visas, you must have data on when they have said their date of travel is.

Paul Lincoln

We do have data, which we typically receive about three months in advance, in terms of that, from the airline, which then works into the scheduling of our staff. Of course, we do do some dynamic scheduling of people, but the most important part is in terms of having sufficient window for us to be able to resource.

Chair

Three months is quite a long time to know that you have got people coming through.

Paul Lincoln

We also use historic data on that, but the levels that we have seen this year were beyond the predictions of Heathrow and the airlines themselves.

Chair

Are these people who have booked at the last minute? I am a bit puzzled. If you get information three months in advance—because some people book their flights late but most people do not—you have that information through the airlines, through all the normal reporting processes, of which I know only too well, as I was at the Home Office implementing that at the time and pushing it through at the time, but you say you cannot then use that data.

Paul Lincoln

We use the data, including the advance passenger information—

Chair

Exactly.

Paul Lincoln

—to say what are the likely implications for staffing up the particular desks—the breakdown between non-EEA and EEA passengers.

Chair

So you have the numbers.

Paul Lincoln

And we therefore staff to our best ability, using that data which is available.

Chair

What is then the problem with the queues? You have talked about the 200 additional staff over the summer. First of all, where are they from? Are they from other airports or are they being recruited?

Paul Lincoln

Those staff, as the Permanent Secretary said, come predominantly from the HMRC Government surge capability.

Chair

Okay. But if you knew three months in advance that these people are coming—I still don’t understand. You say this is an extraordinary surge, but it is a surge you should have been aware of from that data.

Paul Lincoln

We have some of that data—

Chair

APIS was hard-fought.

Sir Philip Rutnam

All our ports are busy. The time that it takes to resource, recruit, train, get staff into post, is significantly longer than three months.

Chair

So you are saying that there are so many people coming through that actually the surge is not going to be enough. You cannot move people from elsewhere. You are having to recruit and train new people, which you cannot do in three months.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I was saying that that is a strategic challenge, not just a tactical challenge, and three months of advance information is not sufficient to respond to the strategic challenge by expanding the whole workforce. That is something that needs many, many months of planning. There is no doubt that we will talk about that in relation to Brexit.

Chair

So you are saying that there is a long-term increase in workforce; it is not just about providing more for the flights at certain times of the day that are busy.

Sir Philip Rutnam

There is a long-term increase in demand. How that demand is then met to the standards that we need to operate in relation to both security and immigration control is partly about workforce, partly about technology, and about the mix between the two. So it is not just about workforce. And it is also about the operating environment with the airport and the airlines—all of those things.

Caroline Flint

Mr Lincoln, you mentioned the added pressures to do with our security, and obviously issues around modern-day slavery as well. Should you be making a case that actually the service needs more resources to deal with those additional pressures?

Paul Lincoln

We of course review resources regularly, and I have conversations with the Permanent Secretary and we put advice to Ministers on what the level of resource is to achieve the outcomes that they wish to achieve.

Caroline Flint

Are you factoring in—which we will probably come on to in more detail later on—that after we leave the European Union, more documentation might be needed by those people who currently can come through as EU citizens, so there may be more delays?

Paul Lincoln

We have looked at the levels of passengers who are likely to come in, and there is a question about increased growth, which we have just been talking about. But beyond that, we already process 100% of all passengers whether they come from the EU or elsewhere into the country, and we do not see any suggestion that we would process people in a different manner at this stage.

Chair

So EU passengers will still be able to use the e-gates.

Paul Lincoln

Subject to any matters for Ministers in the negotiations with the EU, it is a matter for Ministers to decide whether they can use the e-gates in due course.

Chair

So if they do not use the e-gates, what is your contingency planning?

Paul Lincoln

We look at a range of different possibilities in terms of contingencies and it would be for Ministers to decide whether or not that is appropriate.

Caroline Flint

Given that the Government have indicated that freedom of movement is to end, surely, Sir Philip, that has to be factored in, in terms of there will be some issues where people will not be able to move as freely as they have in the past.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Of course the Government’s expectation is that we will do a deal with the European Union in relation to exit, and that there will be an implementation period, which will run until the end of 2020, during which, barring one or two issues which we can perhaps come on to, such as registration for new arrivals, essentially we have the status quo continuing to operate in relation to movement—people arriving in the UK from the EU. They would therefore continue to be able to use the e-gate. So the issue which you raise is an issue, I think, in relation to the period beyond the implementation period. Of course the Government is continuing to develop its plans, its policies, in relation to that phase of the immigration system.

Caroline Flint

We will maybe come back to that later. I understand about the transition period, or implementation period. I think I am looking down the road beyond that—that there will be discussions had about what additional asks will be expected of people who no longer can come in as freely as they have in the past.

Chair

Can you just remind us: is it seven months or more to recruit someone to the Border Force, Mr Lincoln?

Paul Lincoln

Yes. The last time I was at this Committee I said that if we were doing a large-scale recruitment it would take probably, on average, about 12 months to bring somebody into the recruitment selection processes, into training, and then to be deployed and mentored as part of that process. There are shorter ways to do that, depending on which level of training capacity you want individual levels of staff to have as part of that.

Chair

How many are you recruiting at the moment? What is the live recruitment number? Can you remember?

Paul Lincoln

The Home Secretary previously said that we are in the process of recruiting 300 people for a readiness taskforce. That process is almost complete. The former Home Secretary also announced that we were in the process of creating a pipeline for up to 1,000 Border Force officers. We have set up a pipeline to do that.

Chair

What does that mean—setting up a pipeline?

Paul Lincoln

We have a recruitment and training process, which is being put in hand, and we can bring officers in on the back of that to deploy to a combination of needs, whether that is attrition within our own Border Force—

Chair

I still do not understand. You have got something in hand. You have got 1,000 people. Where are they in the system, in this pipeline? Are they waiting to be offered the chance—

Caroline Flint

Are they in the pipe or entering the pipe?

Paul Lincoln

We are currently in a process of sifting and interviewing candidates as part of that pipeline.

Chair

So once they are interviewed--obviously some will fall at that hurdle—then they go through training. So these people you are interviewing are still nearly 12 months away from any deployment—those at higher level, anyway.

Paul Lincoln

The announcement was made on this in March, which fits in with a year, to the questions that were asked by this Committee previously as to whether or not we would be prepared to bring in additional people if that was required. So that is why we are setting up a pipeline—to be able to flexibly meet those needs. So as people are selected and interviewed we can decide whether and where to provide for those people to perform their duties.

Chair

I think we are still concerned that even with the predicted numbers that you can see coming forward, it takes this long to react to those numbers.

Gareth Snell

Mr Lincoln, you said you are looking at contingencies on what we have just discussed. How many of those contingencies have with them an additional cost burden that is not currently in your base budget? Second to that, you said that you are meeting the ministerial objectives within your resources. Are there things that you think could be happening to better meet those ministerial objectives, which you are unable to do because the resourcing to do them is not with you?

Paul Lincoln

The budget, for example, which was published in the estimates, for Border Force, was £496 million for this year; but in addition to that we—or the Department, the Home Secretary—have allocated additional funds associated with EU exit, which brings the Border Force budget up to £560 million for this year. So it is a significant amount of additional resource, which is helping us to prepare for EU exit challenges, so I am confident, on the basis of that, that we will be able to deliver what we are being asked to do by Ministers.

Gareth Snell

So is that additional money, which the Home Secretary has earmarked, specifically ring-fenced to use for contingencies that you referred to earlier, or is it just part of your budget for the in-year overspend or in-year programmes?

Paul Lincoln

The Home Office was allocated £395 million of EU exit funding, a proportion of which, as I have just described, is in my budget. That is being used to prepare for a range of different options as part of looking at how we will approach EU exit.

Sir Philip Rutnam

In response to your question, with that element of the £395 million, we are building capability in the form of people and strengthening systems and procedures so that we can deal with a range of scenarios­­—obviously, front and foremost, the Government’s expected scenario of a deal with the European Union, but a range of other scenarios as well. So it is going into building capability.

Gareth Snell

So under all your scenario planning for the various potential arrangements that we have when we exit the EU and in relation to the Border Force, there is sufficient money in the budget to cover your day-to-day operational activities as well as any contingencies you may need to put in place to meet those various scenarios. None of them are basically unfunded.

Sir Philip Rutnam

They are certainly not unfunded. It is fair to say that the level of challenge will depend on the scenario that we end up with. Of course the Government’s expected and preferred scenario is a deal with the European Union and an implementation period.

Gareth Snell

So potentially if the Government gets a good deal and we end up with a deal and an implementation period, you may end up with a small surplus in your budget because the contingency funding for no-deal scenarios is presumably greater than those with deals.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I would predict that we will end up with an even more capable organisation than the one we have now, which is even better able to deal with the range of challenges and threats we face at the border: controlling not just immigration and the flow of people, but the flow of goods, protecting the country’s security—a whole range of challenges. We will have a more capable organisation, which is larger in terms of headcount and has stronger underpinning systems.

Chair

We will come back to this in more detail later. I want to touch on the reports in The Guardian about David Bolt’s inspection of your charges for immigration, nationality and customs services. It is noticeable—we notice it as constituency MPs—how high and how quickly fees have risen. What do you make of the Bolt review? What has been the rationale to date for the increases in fees? Is it to backfill other gaps in your budget?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Let me say something about the historical rationale and then I will comment on the current position. It has been the policy under successive Governments, going back to the 2007 Immigration Act, that fees for particular immigration products may be set above the level of processing that particular product. The rationale for that is that we provide a whole range of products in the immigration system, some of which are highly desirable, and people’s willingness to pay for them is high, and the gap between the charge that we are able to make and the cost of processing the product—any surplus—can go towards defraying the general cost of running the border and immigration system. Obviously, the extent to which it is not funded by fee income falls on general taxpayers. That has been the rationale. The development of the fees structure—the fact that citizenship, naturalisation and registration command particularly high fees—has reflected a sense of the products that are most valuable to the recipients and those that are less valuable. So some rationale has underpinned that. Of course, it is an issue for Ministers—it is a policy issue. I can say that Ministers are well aware of the concern that has been raised and are considering the issue now. I do not think I can go any further than that, but I can reassure you—

Chair

They are considering the issue separately from David Bolt’s review as the independent inspector.

Sir Philip Rutnam

David Bolt is looking at the matter as the independent chief inspector. He operates independently—

Chair

But you are telling me that Ministers are also looking at the matter.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Ministers are considering the issue. They are aware of the concern and are considering the issue. I do not think I should say any more about that now apart from making the obvious point that, were there to be any change in the structure of fees—any change in the policy—to the extent to which the system is not funded from fee income, there will be an additional cost to the Exchequer, to taxpayers, and that is clearly a pertinent factor for Ministers in thinking about the issue.

Chair

As an MP for a constituency where many people pay these fees, I simply observe that they can be crippling for a family who want to contribute to the UK but are finding it hard to do so, but I also recognise the impact on taxpayers in general. I recognise the challenge, but it is noticeable that fees have gone up a lot. I think the nuances of what you have said, Sir Philip—about Ministers as well as the chief inspector looking at the matter—will be picked up outside this room. We will leave it there for now, but I am sure we will come to that at some point. We are now going to introduce you formally. Apologies to Mr Webb, who has been sitting there waiting for his turn; I am sure he has been quite happy to let you take the heat for a moment. Stephen Webb is the senior responsible owner for the emergency services network at the Home Office. I think this is your fifth visit to us now, Mr Webb. Sir Philip Rutnam is the permanent secretary at the Home Office, who comes regularly but on this issue has, I think, also been in front of us five times. Paul Lincoln is the director general of the UK Border Force. Apologies for not introducing you earlier.

Lee Rowley

I know the ESN has been in front of us, as Ms Hillier said, five times. It is the first time I have looked at it, so perhaps we could start with some points of fact. How many people are working on this project at the moment?

Sir Philip Rutnam

In the Department? We have had a team of about 340—a very large team. One of the things we have been doing in resetting the programme, which no doubt we will go on to talk about, is redesigning that team and making sure that it is lean, focused and absolutely right for the purpose. I have taken the view that we do not need a team as large as 340. If we have the right relationships with our customers and with suppliers, we can have a smaller team. We are in the process of downsizing the team. Thus far, I think about 100 of the 340 have moved on. We had a particularly high proportion of contractors. We have been reducing the number of contractors and consultants.

Lee Rowley

What is the target, or the end state?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I think the target is 200?

Stephen Webb

It is 140.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Right, 140—so a significant contraction.

Chair

I lost track there. You said 100 have moved on.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Yes, 100 have gone so far.

Stephen Webb

Slightly more than 70 have gone so far.

Lee Rowley

Okay—340 minus 70 is 270. So another 130 are going in order to get down to 140?

Stephen Webb

That is the plan.

Lee Rowley

By when?

Stephen Webb

Probably by the end of the year. It is still a planning assumption; there is still more work needed on it, and it will go up and down during the transition.

Lee Rowley

Sure. What is the run rate, on a weekly or monthly basis, of this project at the moment?

Stephen Webb

For the overall programme this year, you would probably be talking about £25 million. Obviously, the large bulk of that is the payments we are making to the main suppliers.

Lee Rowley

Does that take into account the reduction in headcount, or is that exclusive of a reduction in headcount?

Stephen Webb

Obviously headcount is a very small proportion compared with the payments to the major suppliers.

Sir Philip Rutnam

That is £25 million per month.

Lee Rowley

What were the last known benefits that were published on this scheme? I am aware it has had a reset and is under change, but what were the last known benefits?

Stephen Webb

As in the quantum of benefits?

Lee Rowley

Yes. Number, by when.

Stephen Webb

I am not sure anything has been published. The NAO figures talked about some of the FBC—final business case—numbers. Broadly speaking, we are looking for some substantial cash savings once the system goes live, and a series of other benefits around productivity.

Lee Rowley

The number being what?

Stephen Webb

For the FBC, I think the discounted number that was quoted was around £1 billion for other benefits.

Lee Rowley

Over what period?

Stephen Webb

Over a 15-year operation of the whole programme.

Lee Rowley

Starting when?

Stephen Webb

That is discounted down, and the cash savings would have been, back then, probably around £1.5 billion over the whole life of the business case.

Lee Rowley

You are in a review at the moment. When we were last here, we were talking about the review being concluded in July. Is that review still on track to be concluded in July?

Sir Philip Rutnam

It is on track, yes. It is not there yet, but I am reasonably confident that it will be done to that timescale. I do not want to say more than reasonably confident because these are very complex things, but we have some very significant milestones ahead of us that we are working towards, including a major projects review group discussion towards the end of July. Obviously I have set milestones along the way, and we will do our absolute best to make sure that we are ready for that.

Lee Rowley

Why are we one month out from a six, seven or eight-month review and only reasonably confident that it will be concluded by the date stated to us in February?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I think, first, that it is best not to over-promise.

Lee Rowley

There is certainly no danger of that on this project, is there?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Secondly, I am aware of the huge complexity of this programme and the fact that it comprises many interdependent parts. I have seen good progress on a number of those interdependent parts, but I want to see more progress on some of them.

Lee Rowley

Who is running the review for you? Is it Mr Webb or somebody else?

Sir Philip Rutnam

The structure is that Stephen is the senior responsible owner—SRO—so has overall responsibility for this, and we have brought in a new project director called Bryan Clark who has many years of experience in complex technology programmes. He is working 120% of his time on the review.

Lee Rowley

If he has many years of experience, why can we not guarantee the end of July as the end point? Do you have all the data you need, yes or no?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Some of the factors are—

Lee Rowley

Do you have all the data you need?

Sir Philip Rutnam

There is always more data that one would want. Do we have the data that I think is likely to be needed to make some key judgments? Yes, but there are still some key elements outstanding. In particular, there is a significant set of commercial negotiations around this programme, as we have discussed before, which are obviously not fully under our control, because there are counter parties.

Lee Rowley

So you have all the data you need. Have you produced the options paper?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I did not say that we have all the data we need. Do we have options papers? Yes, we have options papers. Do they need further development? Yes, they need further development.

Lee Rowley

Have the alternative scenario plans been looked at?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Yes.

Lee Rowley

So what variable is preventing you from getting to the end of July, other than the commercial negotiations?

Sir Philip Rutnam

The commercial negotiations is a very important one.

Lee Rowley

But that is not a new variable. You knew about that variable in February and when you started this. The question is: why are we at the end of June and we are not sure if we will get to the end of July?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I did say that commercial negotiations are down to more than us. It is a multi-sided business. The other thing that I need to be clear about is that there are many levels of governance that this programme needs to go through beyond just those under my control, including my own Ministers, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. We are not yet in the thick of those levels of governance. Again, that is another reason for not over-promising. Stephen might want to add some more detail.

Lee Rowley

Just so I am clear, for a project that is years late and possibly significantly over budget—we will come on to that in a moment—you are now telling me that the review of that project does not have a clear timeframe and does not have a clear objective to meet or by when?

Sir Philip Rutnam

No, I do not think I’m saying that at all. We set a timeframe—the end of July. That was discussed at the hearing in February, for which I apologise for not being able to attend. You asked me whether I could guarantee that that date would be met. I declined to guarantee it but said that I am reasonably confident. That is an assurance, but is not a 100% guarantee, because I do not think such a guarantee, on something as complex and multi-sided as this, is a wise thing to do.

Lee Rowley

Everything is complex and everything is multi-sided. That is the reason why you have a project director with many years’ experience in place. I am surprised that, for this multi-month and complex review, we are getting to the end of June and we are still not sure that we will achieve an output to that review.

Sir Philip Rutnam

The project director is under no misapprehensions at all—nor is Stephen nor anybody else working on this programme—that we expect to conclude this review by the end of July.

Lee Rowley

Moving on, on 30 May, The Register printed an article called, “Britain mulls 'complete shutdown' of 4G net for emergency services”, written by a journalist called Kat Hall. Is that article right or wrong?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I think that article is an exaggeration and is misleading, as things so often are in journalism. The position is that, as we are in the process of resetting the programme, we will look at alternative options. You mentioned the need for options analysis earlier. It is always—always—an option in a programme to consider not proceeding with it. It is wise to consider that option. It is one of the central set of scenarios that one needs to test. Is that what we are intending to do? Is that what we are aiming to do? No, for two very simple reasons—

Lee Rowley

We will come on to the options in a moment. You have told me so far about one thing in the article, which was the close-down. You are not contesting that you are discussing that, so the article is accurate in that place. Where is it inaccurate?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I said it was an exaggeration, and I think that that is—

Lee Rowley

You have just told me you are considering closing it down, and you told me it was wise to consider closing it down. The article says you are considering closing it down.

Sir Philip Rutnam

A lot is to do with the way in which one presents things and the emphasis that is put on different options. As I was about to explain, we are very clear that the strategic intent behind the emergency services network remains the right strategic intent. We need to move the technology that is underpinning emergency services communications from its essentially rather historical—reliable, but historical—effectively 2G environment to a modern, adaptable 4G technology that is capable of providing much greater functionality at much lower cost.

Lee Rowley

We do not need to go into that right now.

Chair

We know the detail.

Lee Rowley

To go back to my question, where is this article “exaggerating” or “misleading”?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I am afraid I do not have the article in front of me, so I cannot do a—

Lee Rowley

I am happy to go through it. Is it that you have options papers, one of which is that there is an incremental roll-out of ESN? We know that the other bit is correct, because the second option is an effective shutdown of the ESMCP. So we know that is right—I will put a tick against that. You have a first option that suggests an incremental roll-out of ESN. Is that correct?

Sir Philip Rutnam

You asked about inaccuracies. I think the statement, for example, halfway down the first page, “Airwave may need to run for another five to 10 years until it is ready”, is an overstatement. Are there circumstances in which such a thing could happen? There are potentially circumstances, but is it an accurate statement of the central hypothesis? No, it is not.

Lee Rowley

List the inaccuracies for me. We can go through them in a moment if we want to deal with them. That one is an exaggeration. Where else is there a problem in here?

Sir Philip Rutnam

On the second page—at least in the pagination I have—it says, “there are also issues around the new devices being rigged up for push-to-talk.” There are always issues, but that is not an accurate account of the technological position. Stephen could speak to that. We have indeed demonstrated and tested the push-to-talk capability on a number of occasions and are very confident in the ability to deliver it.

Lee Rowley

Fine. We are accepting that there are issues, but we are not sure there are issues. Anything else?

Sir Philip Rutnam

As I say, a great deal is to do with presentation and emphasis.

Lee Rowley

I get your point that you are concerned about the presentation and emphasis, and I understand that from your perspective, in terms of this being one of your largest projects and not going particularly well. If we put the emphasis away for the moment, where else is this article inaccurate?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I have already picked out two points that I think are inaccurate in their emphasis.

Lee Rowley

The cost of extending Airwave that was suggested was between £360 million and £475 million. Are those numbers you recognise?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I will ask Stephen to pick that up.

Stephen Webb

They are two different numbers. The £475 million was a number quoted by the NAO, and that was not just the cost of Airwave but continuing with the cost of mobile broadband in forces.

Lee Rowley

So you are not contesting that you are looking at significant changes to the structure and delivery of this? That is an accurate representation?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Of what—of the ESN programme?

Lee Rowley

Yes.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Far from it. We have been saying that for many months, including to this Committee.

Lee Rowley

And you are not contesting the reduction in contractor support, because we have spoken about that already.

Sir Philip Rutnam

No, we are actively pursuing that.

Lee Rowley

Fine. The Register is not that far off, then, in the underlying statements it is making. Can we go to the actual work you are doing? You are currently talking about delivering something in July or thereabouts, with reasonable confidence. What is that likely to say? What could it say?

Sir Philip Rutnam

You said The Register is an accurate—or reasonable—account. There is one fundamental point that I think I was prevented from developing in full, which is that the strategic intent behind the ESN programme remains the right strategic intent.

Chair

You have said that.

Sir Philip Rutnam

You will be familiar that in any complex programme it is right to keep options under review. It is part of the process.

Chair

You have made that point and I do not think Mr Rowley disagrees with you.

Lee Rowley

The article says that—your own spokeswoman says that. So you are just aligning with what the article says. Fine, I accept that. Let’s bake it into the discussion. Let’s go into the review itself. What is it likely to say?

Sir Philip Rutnam

The review is being conducted internally at the moment within the Government. It is not yet complete. I have given you a pretty clear sense of the intent behind the Home Office’s approach. We have talked—in fact, before this Committee—about the reset in terms of taking a more incremental approach to delivery. I am happy to talk about that in more detail. I am not happy to talk about some elements of the review, though, including the commercial dimension, because that remains very sensitive.

Chair

Mr Rowley is asking about which bits you want to talk about. That is fine.

Lee Rowley

What is the review likely to say on dates?

Sir Philip Rutnam

On dates?

Lee Rowley

Yes.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I do not want to get into giving specific dates at this point, because, until the review has been completed and through the governance to which I am accountable, I think that would be premature.

Lee Rowley

Okay, let’s try to break that down. Correct me if I am wrong: we know that this will not deliver on the original timeframes.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Yes.

Lee Rowley

Mr Webb is nodding. We know there is at least a 15-month delay—correct? That was the last statement I read.

Stephen Webb

I think there was a statement—

Chair

You wrote to us on that, actually.

Lee Rowley

So that is into 2022 on its own—correct?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Actually, I think it is worth talking about what an incremental approach means.

Lee Rowley

No, no, no.

Sir Philip Rutnam

It is worth talking about—

Lee Rowley

No, it’s not.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Because under an incremental approach—

Chair

We can get into that detail, but we are trying to talk about when the whole thing will be finished.

Lee Rowley

I am happy to talk about incremental, but if it was 2020 and there is a 15-month delay, ergo it must be 2022—right? Notwithstanding what you may uncover in a moment, the last known date was 2022—correct or incorrect?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Under an incremental approach, in fact some products will become available sooner. So the—

Chair

But we are talking about the rollout of the whole programme.

Lee Rowley

I understand that.

Sir Philip Rutnam

The date—you understand that. Good.

Chair

We are going to get into that detail in a minute.

Lee Rowley

As an ex-budget manager, I understand the definition of incrementalism. What I am asking for is the end point for this project. If it was 2020, add 15 months and it is 2022—correct? Now, tell me whether that date is likely to move any further on the basis of your assessments. You don’t have to tell me the quantum; just tell me whether it is going to move.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I have to say, I think we should complete our review before giving you an assessment of the likelihood of that.

Lee Rowley

I am not asking for a detailed assessment; I am asking for a direction of travel. Is that date likely to move?

Sir Philip Rutnam

My view is we should complete our internal review before giving you an assessment of the likelihood of a particular date.

Chair

Sir Philip, we appreciate that you have got a review coming through and, whether public or not, you will make an announcement about it. Since you came into post, you have said you would do a review, which was going to be in January. In fact, I think I recall that you were not so keen to give evidence to us because you thought that would overlap with the review. That review is not going to be ready until July. So you have been looking at it for some time and you must have an idea of the general direction of travel. Mr Rowley is not asking for specifics. To be honest, we have had other people in front of us before who have said, “Yes, there is going to be a problem. There will be more slippage.” It is better to tell us now than for it to come out later. It may well be the case; it is a complex project.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I understand that, and I recognise my duties here, but I also have duties to Ministers and I have duties to those who have to account for the public money that is put into this. I think that when I have not yet had the opportunity to go through the options you talked about and the timescales in detail with Ministers—because the review is still in progress—it is premature.

Chair

Okay. So you are saying you have not been able to brief Ministers on this.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Because the review is still in progress. Of course, we have briefed Ministers and the new Home Secretary to some extent, but we have not yet taken him or other ministerial colleagues through the level of detail which you are now asking for. I understand why you are asking for it.

Lee Rowley

Do you know whether the date is likely to slip? Let’s move back a moment and assume you do not even have to tell me the answer. Do you know the answer?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Of course, I have been testing the project team. Is my testing of the project team on questions like that at an end? No, it is not.

Lee Rowley

I can derive one of two conclusions from that. Tell me which one is correct—I am sure you will tell me it is a third, but bear with me—either you do not know the answer, so my question is, what has this review been doing for six months, or you do know the answer, but you do not want to tell me. Which one is it?

Sir Philip Rutnam

As I have said, I have been testing the project team. In a review like this, you would expect the project team to be focusing critically on questions like the timescale for delivery—not just the start, but the end—and you would expect me to be testing it. As I have explained, I have not yet finished my testing of that, nor have I yet been in a position to brief Ministers, as I think I should, on the substance of it. So the answer is, yes—

Lee Rowley

I am concerned for the health of your review. We already have a project that is problematic and, at the moment, you are not giving me a clear answer to the question about whether your review is giving you the answers you need to make those recommendations to Ministers. Give me some comfort that you will actually be able to make recommendations to Ministers—that your review is working in that regard—and therefore, that you know the answers to some of the questions, but you just do not want to tell us.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I can give you comfort on that. I am satisfied with the quality of the work that is being done. There is definitely more to be done, but I am satisfied that the work is of the right sort of quality in terms of detail and the breadth of vision and scope.

Lee Rowley

Will this review revisit the costs and benefits analysis?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Necessarily; of course. That is an integral part.

Lee Rowley

And you will publish that information or give it to this Committee?

Sir Philip Rutnam

The first duty we have is to Ministers. I mentioned the MPRG that is coming up. The Treasury also has a clear interest. All those things, and the important decisions that go with that kind of governance, need to be done before we publish anything.

Lee Rowley

Okay. To ask the question again, will you be publishing this—yes, no or I do not know, because somebody else has to tell me whether I can or not?

Sir Philip Rutnam

It is certainly not my decision. The National Audit Office will do a Report on this programme from the summer break onwards, so there will clearly be an independent NAO Report published on it. I am sure the Government will want to publish something. I am absolutely sure of that. What that will be, and when, I do not know. I am not in a position to commit, to be honest, because it is a matter for Ministers, and as I have explained, we need—

Lee Rowley

That is a policy decision. I am asking you questions about facts and whether or not you have come up with a view as to whether the dates will slip. That is a factual question, not a policy decision, so it does not require ministerial input.

Sir Philip Rutnam

It is a factual question, but as I have explained, I have a duty to engage with Ministers and spend time with them on an important issue like this, before I start sharing the information in public.

Chair

You are saying that Ministers do not know at this point. Although you have been doing the review for six months, you are saying that Ministers do not have an idea of an answer to that question.

Sir Philip Rutnam

Of course Ministers have been briefed, but we set a deadline—a date for completing the review—of the end of July. It is now the end of June, so the review is not yet complete and there is more work to be done.

Chair

You seem to think that Mr Rowley is out to attack you just for the sake of it, but what we are saying is that this is the fifth time we have asked questions about this. We have been reading through all the transcripts of what we said before, and much of what we asked about then came to pass. Mr Rowley is just asking, on the basis of all the work we have done and all the work you have done looking at this, whether you think it might slip again. It might not, but is there a possibility that it might go beyond 2022? You were talking about an incremental roll-out, to go back to that point, but if you are going to do it differently, it might mean that you slip because you are testing it at different steps along the way. That might be a good thing and you could make a case for that.

Sir Philip Rutnam

It might well do. I hope that if and when we get the chance to explain how an incremental roll-out would work, the attractiveness of it, in terms of providing additional services and building user confidence, would become clear, but it needs to be seen in the round.

Lee Rowley

I am very happy to talk about incremental roll-out, although I do not need a definition of it. Tell me what your thinking is in terms of how you deliver this programme incrementally?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Mr Webb can pick that up.

Stephen Webb

We have a series of user needs between the critical data part of the solution and the critical voice. It is increasingly clear that, actually, the network is in a good state. EE, over the ESN, is in a position, pretty much now, to offer prioritised, highly robust critical data, and a number of our users are interested in taking that now.

Lee Rowley

Is there a pilot? Tell me the detail.

Stephen Webb

We are going to do more than pilot. Potentially, you could start rolling that out really quickly, pretty soon, to some of our users.

Lee Rowley

How would you do that?

Chair

By region?

Stephen Webb

It would actually be by those customers, those users, who are interested in taking it, so maybe by ambulance trusts, by elements of the fire service, on the data side. We are talking to our customers about who is interested.

Chair

Can you just be clear? Would that be regionally, or could it be an ambulance trust alone in an area where a police force and fire service wouldn’t?

Stephen Webb

We are probably not doing it strictly by region, because if you are an ambulance trust and you have mobile data terminals that are due for a refresh, it is a relatively simple issue to put one of the ESN SIM cards in as it goes in, and then you have far better data quality. Ambulance trusts are one group that I am noticing are reaching the borders of what they can do with commercial broadband as it stands, so they are interested in this. On the critical voice side as well, there is a recognition that our users have a range of requirements. There are some users for whom a relatively early stage product may well be enough and may well be something they are very interested in using.

Lee Rowley

What would be an early stage product?

Stephen Webb

Well, there are push-to-talk, mission-critical products out there in use.

Lee Rowley

You are not really answering my questions. You are a month away from delivering the review. You will know what the answers are to these questions, because you have done the replay. This was accepted in February. So what is it incrementally—how are you going to chunk this project up?

Stephen Webb

Again, the idea is that some users may be prepared to take an early voice product.

Lee Rowley

Which users?

Chair

You mentioned ambulance trusts.

Stephen Webb

That was for data. We are particularly talking—

Lee Rowley

Sorry, but is it that the ambulance trusts have agreed to do that and are going to be your pilot users on this, or that you are still having a discussion about that now?

Stephen Webb

They are pretty committed; we are pretty clear that they will be using on the data side. On the early stages of voice, we are into advanced discussions—in particular, I think, with one of our own agencies, Immigration Enforcement.

Sir Philip Rutnam

indicated assent.

Lee Rowley

So on those two examples, when would you expect them to be rolled out under your incremental plan?

Stephen Webb

That is something we are still in the final versions of planning. It is partly picked up in some of these commercial discussions.

Lee Rowley

Give me a range.

Stephen Webb

On data, we should have a very good chance of getting something out this calendar year, and the early versions of critical voice around the turn of the year.

Lee Rowley

So by the end of this year, you will start an incremental roll-out with an ambulance trust or a number of ambulance trusts, or conclude an incremental roll-out with an ambulance trust or a number of ambulance trusts?

Stephen Webb

It will depend on where the ambulance trusts are in their upgrade. They have a fairly national—a co-ordinated national programme.

Lee Rowley

But you will have done your critical path independent assessment—

Stephen Webb

Yes; it will be starting with one and then working over a period—

Lee Rowley

What’s the answer to the question?

Stephen Webb

It will be kicking off with one and then working out—

Lee Rowley

Where would we be by the end of the year on that?

Stephen Webb

We would be starting by the end of the year.

Gareth Snell

I’m just going to inquire into something on the back of the excellent questioning by Mr Rowley. Sir Philip, you said that Ministers were not told. In your mind, do you have a date when you are going to be briefing the Ministers?

Sir Philip Rutnam

I did not say Ministers had not been told. I said that I thought I should, before I—

Gareth Snell

That is not the question. Do you have a date by which you expect Ministers to be fully informed of the outcome of the review, which would then allow you to give answers to Mr Rowley’s questions?

Sir Philip Rutnam

We are in discussion with Ministers, as you would expect. We have had discussions with Ministers in the last two weeks, and there will be more discussions with them during July as this review heads towards completion.

Gareth Snell

Again, I am asking specifically: at what point, Sir Philip, do you believe you will be in a position where you would be ready to give a full report to Ministers on the content of that review?

Sir Philip Rutnam

That is integral to finishing the review, and as I said earlier, I am reasonably confident we will do that by the end of July.

Gareth Snell

By the end of July.

Sir Philip Rutnam

No later.

Gareth Snell

At which point, you would be able to come back with the answers to the questions that—

Sir Philip Rutnam

I am here under the direction of Ministers, obviously, so I would want to—in principle, the answer is yes, but I do just need to reserve my obligations to Ministers.

Chair

Let us be clear. Obviously, Ministers decide policy, and the policy of the Government is to roll out the emergency services network to replace the Airwave network. That was a given whenever we first started looking at this. The policy decision has been made, so are you informing Ministers of operational issues or are you asking them, will you be asking them, do you think, to make decisions about any changes to that policy?

Sir Philip Rutnam

They are ultimately responsible for this programme, and they need to make the key decisions.

Gareth Snell

Surely what you are saying, Sir Philip, is that the review will be undertaken and that information will be presented to Ministers. I entirely understand that you want to give the full answers to those sorts of questions to Ministers before you give them to us. Once that information has been passed to Ministers, the outcome of the review will not change, because the review will have been done. Therefore, the questions you have quite legitimately been asked this afternoon could be answered in full after Ministers have received the same information.

Chair

Mr Snell is trying to timetable our next meeting.

Gareth Snell

No, not at all, Chair.

Sir Philip Rutnam

I recognise that—or a letter from me or something like that. I recognise the point and hear what you say. In any event, there will be NAO scrutiny. I am sure we will need to make the substance of the review that we have undertaken clear to this Committee.

Caroline Flint

How much longer will Airwave remain operable?

Stephen Webb

It will remain operable for as long as we need it. We are in discussions with the providers, and we are confident that the necessary investment will be made to keep it working.

Caroline Flint

I seem to recall that, last time we looked at it, Motorola raised the issue that there needs to be a two-year refit that could cost more money. In February this year, the Home Office said that a solution had been found to no cost at all. Is that still the case?

Stephen Webb

That project is continuing. It is between Motorola and one of its main subcontractors, along with Vodafone. A new system is being put in place that will replace the time division multiplex system that Vodafone is planning to withdraw. We are getting regular reports on the progress of that, and we are pleased with it.

Caroline Flint

In that sense, what level of risk are we exposed to if discussions with Motorola and Vodafone break down?

Stephen Webb

An agreement has already been made between the two, and the work is proceeding as we speak.

Caroline Flint

So you don’t think there is any risk of that breaking down?

Stephen Webb

No. Vodafone is the one providing the TDM service, and it is helping to provide the new service as well. We do not expect the old TDM to be turned off until the new one is ready. As I say, good progress is being made.

Caroline Flint

What if there does have to be a partial roll-out, which might extend the period that we still have to use Airwave? Would there be additional costs to extending Airwave?

Stephen Webb

We have a contract that already has some provisions for costing extensions, and so on. As you can imagine, that is a major part of the commercial discussions we are having with Motorola at the moment. That is one of the causes of the delay, and it is coming right up to the end. We are obviously holding out for the best possible deal for the taxpayer in these discussions.

Caroline Flint

You have allowed, within the contract, some contingency for Airwave having to be used for an extended period. Does that include extra costs, and do we know what they are?

Stephen Webb

The way the contract works—it is a PFI—is that the charge we pay every year includes a contribution to paying off the capital that was needed at the beginning. We discussed this at a previous Committee. Our strong view is that the charge already includes a component for whatever capital investment is needed to run the network. We would not expect to pay anything more than we are paying at the moment. In fact, we would argue that it is less for a short extension.

Chair

You are in an in interesting position. I appreciate you are in commercial negotiations. We will now move on to the border and Brexit. Last time you came in front of us, Patsy Wilkinson was still with you. Of course, she has now left. Has she been replaced yet?

Sir Philip Rutnam

No, she has not been replaced. The post is vacant at the moment. However, the recruitment process is well under way. A job ad is out on civil service jobs, and applications close at the start of next week.

Chair

Who has replaced her on the border planning group in the interim?

Sir Philip Rutnam

Patsy was co-chairing the border planning group with Jon Thompson of HMRC. Paul Lincoln, who was already attending, is now co-chairing it with Jon. We also have Glyn Williams, who is the policy DG covering the borders and immigration system. He also attends the BPG.

Chair

He is attending in addition—so where you used to be, Mr Lincoln.

Paul Lincoln

Effectively, there are three Home Office representatives at that meeting at any time. We also have representatives from the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism as well to ensure we cover the breadth of Home Office business.

Chair

One of the challenges we will face as we leave the EU, under whatever scenario, is that the EU could restrict access to intelligence and data. We have already seen some rumblings recently on that. Mr Lincoln, given that you chair that group—and with your day job hat on—what plans have you got in place to cope if the EU does restrict access to that intelligence data?

Paul Lincoln

I will start, as you might expect, by saying that the Government is not expecting there to be no deal. The Government has set out a set of plans for an ambitious security relationship.

Chair

But even if there is a deal the EU could restrict information and access to intelligence data.

Paul Lincoln

The Government’s plan is still to have a comprehensive, deep and special relationship, in accordance with security and intelligence matters. That said, of course the Department is looking at the implications of the possible mitigations if some of those tools were not available to us. It has done a comprehensive range of work to examine what those implications might be, including on the systems we operate.

Chair

That is a lot of words, but, practically, what does it mean if you do not have access to Prüm, for instance, or Europol? I am trying to remember, from the days when I was dealing with these things, all the different agencies involved. If you do not have access to that—the database of fingerprints and so on—how, practically, can you keep this country safe, or as safe as it has been with that information exchange, if you do not have it? You say you have plans in place. What plans? What would you do if there was no deal?

Paul Lincoln

As the Department have been working their way through, they have been looking at potential mitigations for that—so, for example, using increased range of data from organisations such as Interpol, rather than necessarily relying on data sources which we have elsewhere. We will use that to try to mitigate the effect of the reduction in service, as it were, from the EU.

Chair

We can have people coming into this country, though, who we cannot—for instance, will the fingerprint system that operates under the Dublin convention operate? If someone came to this country and had presented somewhere else for asylum, what would happen there?

Paul Lincoln

The UK has one of the largest DNA databases, which we have access to—

Chair

That is for people who have been in the UK.

Paul Lincoln

And we will continue to use those databases. We will continue to use things like the Interpol lost and stolen passport database, which is one of the critical pieces.