While the recently announced delay to the British Transport Police (BTP) merger with Police Scotland was a welcome relief, it will nonetheless come at a cost that wasn’t accounted for on either side of the border.
The BTP and BTP Authority anticipated a clean break by early 2019. Meanwhile, the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) is now expected to meet ongoing transition costs that are currently indefinite, and will invariably involve some very hefty consultancy fees.
To put it bluntly, this isn’t the deal that was agreed by stakeholders, or in the Scottish Parliament.
MSPs passed a Bill underpinned by assurances about minimal transition costs, potential efficiencies, manageable pension costs, engagement with staff and railway industry and ‘a seamless transition of railway policing from the BTP to Police Scotland’. While stakeholders questioned the veracity of these claims at the time, it now beyond doubt that that the underpinning information was deeply flawed.
The projected operational costs are still unknown, principally because it’s still not at all clear how integration will work. There are for instance, serious questions about the ICT required to secure cross-border railway policing. Police Scotland’s own disjointed IT problems are well-documented, while the task of replicated BTP systems north of the border and linking this back to the BTP is fiendishly complicated. There is no evidence that integration will result in ‘more effective operational policing’, as asserted in the policy memorandum. Relatedly, there is still no evidence of buy-in from BTP Scotland officers and staff, most of whom remain hostile to the merger. Instead, there is a real risk that the skills and experience required for successful integration will be lost.
On pensions, the SPA and Scottish Government now appear to be odds as to who will foot the Bill. Having had sight of the actuarial advice, SPA CEO Kenneth Hogg has asked the Scottish Government to meet the liability; Ministers have since confirmed that the SPA will be responsible. The fact that legal advice was only sought after Royal Assent reflects badly on the policy-making process; as the BTP Authority presciently cautioned during the passage of the Bill, ‘need actuarial advice – it won’t be this straightforward’.
What happens next is a major test for the SPA and its independence from Scottish Government.
As it stands, the SPA is being asked to cover indefinite transition costs and a presumably hefty pension liability, neither of which were part of the original deal. The upshot is that the merger is likely to seriously detract from the Policing 2026 transformation project.
The alternatives are that the Scottish Government meet the costs, which will fall on the taxpayer; and/or that the costs hit the Train Operating Companies further down the line, with a potential increase in rail fares.
‘A material change in circumstances’
To borrow from the Scottish Government’s line on Brexit, there has been a significant and material change in the circumstances. The BTP merger isn’t what it said on the tin and, if anything, now looks like a threat to both the future of Scottish policing and railway policing on either side of the border.
David Lacey says
This is typical Scottish government pushing through a completely unessacary process so they have a power grab at policing the railways. The consultation which they ignored did not have one positive mention of the hostile takeover working. There were numerous cheaper options on the table but no ignore them and push on regardless.
So many failings by the SNP since their term in office so why do members of the public ignore the facts thst they have failed policing and the BTP family.
We can put as many facts to the Scottish government as we can, but will they listen? “I’ll crack the jokes”
John Doe says
You’ were just panicking because you’d be massively found out and out of your depth if you were to be forced to work for Police Scotland
Stefano says
A very insightful article; but may I position an opinion from the opposite side of the camp. Nobody would disagree that BTP do a great job and indeed are well respected with a strong history. I think the focus on the parliamentary score keeping here is being used to detract from the overall intention of the SNP, the fact is operationally BTP are a collection of 200 or so officers across the entire length of Scotland so by pure geography alone the force is not sufficient at dealing with all incidents on the railways particularly when you consider the bulk of the police appear to be based in Edinburgh and Glasgow, Police Scotland naturally pick up the slack in between. This cost is transitioned to the tax payer who are both paying for a National Police service to protect them in their homes and a railway police service to protect their travel, this assumes that BTP and police scotland stick to their respective job. The reality is police Scotland deal with far more incidents relating to the Railway than the reverse and in fact legally and operationally BTP are often standoffish about their jurisdiction. The point is tax payers are paying for Police Scotland which is being detracted from their job to cover another police service who geographically can’t cover their beat efficiently by numbers alone not intended to contradict the great work they do. So, and I accept that the situation is entirely more complicated, but why should tax payers not travelling have to foot the bill by losing their local Service to cover another service? Also by the very nature of having 2 services of 2 vastly different sizes and agendas surely operationally a single force covering the entire country as one unit would be more efficient? The system works better in England as the reality is there appears to be much larger coverage by BTP and the reputation and operations south of the border seem to be used to argue against merger, incidents like Manchester, London Bridge etc. The reality is Police Scotland cover any terrorist response in Scotland regardless of location BTP simply dont have the resources or specialism in Scotland to do it no matter how great and professional the officers are. I think the merger needs to happen, but needs to happen right and all the political point scoring is detracting from the fact public aren’t being supported by BTP as much as the point scoring suggests, and ashamedly at the expense of Police Scotland’s reputation.
Kath says
Hi Stefano,
I agree that the arrangement between BTP and Police Scotland could be improved. Likewise, accountability to the Scottish Parliament can be made stronger. But this isn’t the way to go about it. You could achieve both of those things without full integration. The fact that it involves around 200 officers is almost a distraction: the complexity relates to the structural change (carving out a bit of the BTP, rebuilding it in Scotland and then joining it a back on BTP in E&W). If this goes ahead, the bill to the taxpayer will far outweigh any contribution made as part of the current policing arrangement.
Daniel Easter says
I have to disagree entirely with the premise the BTP are a necessary or effective force. Travel with any large group of football fans from a number of clubs in Scotland outside the Old Firm and the absence of the BTP will be clearly etched in your brain as you pay to suffer unchecked unsociable behaviour for the length of your or their journey.
5 million people need a single effective force not a hotch potch of different authorities with cushy 6 figure management positions at the top.