The next item of business is a debate on motion <IP_ADDRESS> in the name of Hamza Yousaf on the Railway Policing Scotland Bill at stage 1. Could I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons? Could I say to you at this point that, because we ran over on the questions in both statements, there is no time to spare in this debate at all, so discipline, please, from members? I call on Hamza Yousaf to speak to and move the motion up to 12 minutes, minister. I am pleased to have the opportunity to open today's debate on the general principles of the Railway Policing Scotland Bill. This bill follows from the transfer of legislative competence over railway policing to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2016. Members will be aware that the Scottish Government's input to the Smith commission sought devolution of railway policing in order to bring the staff and powers of the British Transport Police within the remit of Police Scotland. The Smith commission's recommendation reached through cross-party agreement that the functions of the BTP in Scotland should be a devolved matter. The Scottish Government's aim in this bill is to establish a framework using the newly devolved powers to ensure that railway policing in Scotland is accountable through the chief constable of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to the people of Scotland. I am, of course, grateful to committee members for the detailed scrutiny of the bill and the wider programme of work and the constructive recommendations in the report. I believe that the quality and extent of that scrutiny helps to demonstrate the clear merits of devolving powers over railway policing to the Scottish Parliament. The bill itself forms part of a wider, on-going programme of work to integrate the BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland. That work is overseen by a joint programme board through which the Scottish Government is working very closely with the UK Government, Scottish Police Authority, the BTP authority, Police Scotland and, of course, the BTP. Scotland's railways are a vital component of our national infrastructure. The British Transport Police provides a specialist railway policing function that is highly valued by the Scottish Government, the rail industry, railway staff and passengers. We will maintain a skillset on our railways post integration. Taking forward those proposals, our primary objective will, of course, be to maintain and enhance the high standards of safety and security that railway users and staff in Scotland experience at present. At the same time, of course— Elaine Smith I thank you for taking intervention. If the service is so highly valued, why was there only one option consulted on? I will make a couple of points on that, if I may. One is that this is a highly long-held ambition of the Scottish Government. The previous Cabinet Secretary for Justice, of course, made the case for BTP integration in 2011. I would make the point gently to the member that when we consulted on this, no other options came from her or her party on other alternative models. If I can make some further progress, before I move on to key points from the Justice Committee's report, I thank all those who have contributed to the committee's evidence sessions. I welcome the Justice Committee's support for the general principles of the bill and its conclusion that integration of the British Transport Police in Scotland into Police Scotland will provide a more integrated and effective approach to infrastructure policing in Scotland. The committee heard during evidence sessions of some concerns about what might happen following integration. It also heard from a number of our key partners about how those concerns are being addressed. The committee is rightly very interested in ensuring that the overall work programme delivers the seamless transition that is expected of it and has recommended that a six-monthly report on the joint programme board's progress is provided to the Parliament. We accept that recommendation and will ensure that the Scottish Government provides those reports on behalf of the board. As many of the committee's recommendations concern delivery of the overall programme, those progress reports will give members the opportunity to consider evidence of how the recommendations are being acted upon. That illustrates that, right from the outset, we are fully committed to ensuring that railway policing in Scotland is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and through it to the people of Scotland. Our proposals will deliver an integrated approach to transport infrastructure policing in Scotland, bringing railway policing alongside policing of roads, seaports, airports and border policing. Integration will enhance railway policing in Scotland through direct access to the specialist resources of Police Scotland, in line with our primary objective of maintaining and enhancing safety and security of railway passengers and staff. Let me be clear about our commitment to maintaining the specialist expertise that railway policing involves and that it requires. In the committee's evidence sessions, ACAC Bernie Higgins confirmed that Police Scotland's intention is to maintain a specialist railway policing function within the broader Police Scotland structure. He gave an absolute assurance that for any member of the BTP who transfers, Police Scotland would respect their right to police the railway environment until they retire. Let me make that abundantly clear to all members across the chamber. If you are a BTP officer in Scotland at present and want to remain policing our railways post-integration, you will continue to be on our railways. ACAC Higgins responded to concerns that railway police officers could be diverted to duties outwith the railway, with a very clear assurance that that would simply not occur, with the obvious exception of a crisis situation. The key benefit is to make railway policing in Scotland more accountable. Crucial to that is the relationship between railway policing and the railway industry in Scotland. As both the funder and recipient of railway policing services, the railway industry's interests are central to the whole process. I fully agree with the committee's conclusions that railway operators should be involved in setting railway policing priorities and objectives in collaboration with the SPA and Police Scotland. It is heartening to hear from most of the railway operators that their engagement with the Government, the SPA and Police Scotland has been constructive. The bill before Parliament will establish a formal mechanism to do just that, to have that engagement in the form of a railway policing management forum. It places that in a statutory footing, going beyond agreements under the existing UK legislation, and its role will be to agree on the service, performance and costs of railway policing in Scotland. I can tell Parliament today that, following a recent meeting between the railway industry, SPA and Police Scotland, there was support for a shadow forum to operate during the process of detailed implementation planning, to complement and contribute to the work of the joint programme board. I will write inviting them to begin that work once the bill completes its passage through Parliament. The committee's report makes several recommendations on cross-border railway policing following the integration of BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland. About 91 per cent of rail travel in Scotland, freight and passenger, is within Scotland, but around 8 million passenger journeys each year are used across border routes, and it is clearly crucial that policing on those routes remains seamless. I wrote to the UK transport minister on 6 December 2016, seeking his co-operation in ensuring seamless cross-border policing following integration, and received a very positive and constructive response. As the committee heard from the UK Government's Department for Transport, effective cross-border policing is a guiding principle of the joint programme board's work, and is in the shared interest of all parties. BTP chief constable Crowther and ACC Higgins of Police Scotland confirm to the committee that they are fully engaged in discussions and will undertake careful scrutiny of the secondary legislation in the UK Parliament on cross-border jurisdiction. Joint programme board partners are also developing operational arrangements for cross-border services in co-operation to ensure that high standards of safety and security are maintained. Police Scotland recently hosted a workshop involving BTP and Scottish and UK Government officials with a further event planned in late June. A particularly important recommendation in the committee's report is one seeking an assurance that the terms, conditions, benefits and pensions of BTP officers and staff will not be adversely affected on transferring to Police Scotland. I am happy to give that assurance to Parliament today. The Scottish Government has listened closely to the issues raised by the BTP Federation and the staff union TSA, and has offered a triple lock guarantee that secures jobs, pay and pensions through the course of integration. The committee's report notes that our assurances to date have not provided officers and staff representatives with sufficient reassurance on their terms and conditions on transfer. John Finnie drew attention in the evidence sessions to where some of the wording could leave room for doubt. I am grateful for the opportunity to be clear about our commitment here. It is true that there is a great deal of work on the detail of terms and conditions to be done over the period ahead, but we can be clear here and now that the terms and conditions, pay and pensions of officers and staff transferring will either be the same as they currently are or an equivalent level of benefit provided to ensure transfer on a no-detriment basis. The passage of the bill will enable the steps to deliver that commitment to proceed, including secondary legislation in the UK Parliament. Officers and staff representatives will be fully engaged in those to ensure that we get the right approach for their members. In terms of engagement with staff organisations and trade unions, he will be aware of a great deal of opposition from the TSS, ASLEF, RMT and the S2UC. In fact, the RMT at the committee said that we have not ruled out the option of taking industrial action to retain BTP officers on the railways. Is the transport minister happy to proceed with a bill that may result in industrial action on our railways and severe disruption to passengers as a result? Is he happy to proceed with a bill that he has been told may result in industrial action? The first point to make is that the engagement with unions has been constructive. Clearly, there is a disagreement that the member mentioned. I have provided as many reassurances and I will continue to provide those reassurances on that triple lock, on their jobs, on their pay and their pensions. We will continue to have that conversation, continue to be constructive, continue to offer reassurances where we can and continue to remove any doubt that may exist in any of the language that we use. What I would say is that, if we think that, as we do in the Government benches and it is shared across some of the political parties here, that this is a sensible approach to railway policing post the devolution of the BTP, then that should not be beholden to the threat of industrial action. Of course, we want to work with unions to avoid industrial action on any issue on our railways, so I continue to do that and continue to have that constructive dialogue. However, we have given that triple lock guarantee on the number of officers on the pay and on the pension. As far as progress has been made, I can tell the chamber that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has met the TSA and the BTPF. Officials met the BTPF recently as 26 April. Transport Scotland officials including myself have met the TSA, RMT and has left on a number of transport issues, including, of course, BTP integration. Alongside those meetings, substantial data gathering and the range of existing terms of conditions has taken place as part of the work of the joint programme board. That data will be used to develop proposals of any secondary legislation to give effect to the transfer, as I say, on a no detriment basis. I will continue to engage with those unions on the issues that they have addressed and that they have brought forward. On pensions, discussions are under way with the BTP authority on the way that we deliver our commitment of no detriment to pension provisions. Our starting point is that officers and staff retain access to their current pension schemes and officials are working with financial and legal issues associated with delivering just that. In conclusion, I repeat my thanks to the committee for its support, for the principles of the bill and the helpful recommendations that it has made. I have sent the convener a written response, addressing the detail of those. We will be looking forward to hearing contributions from members and continue to work in a constructive and, hopefully, a collaborative manner. I move the motion in my name. I call Margaret Mitchell to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. Up to seven minutes, please, Ms Mitchell. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the railway policing Scotland bill on behalf of the Justice Committee and to thank all those who took the time to provide evidence to the committee. My thanks also to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its report, which we endorse. Finally, I wish to thank the Justice Clerks for their hard work and my colleagues on the Justice Committee for their work in scrutinising the bill and producing the report. While devolving railway policing to the Scottish Parliament was agreed by all parties represented on the Smith commission, the model for this devolution was not. There were a number of options proposed by the British Transport Police Authority for devolved railway policing in Scotland. Some respondents raised concerns about the Scottish Government's decision to consult on only one of those options, namely full integration. The majority of the respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation and the Justice Committee's call for evidence opposed integration, integrating the BTB in Scotland into Police Scotland. The committee itself did not come to a unanimous view on the bill. A majority of the committee's support the general principles on the basis that the integration of the British Transport Police in Scotland into Police Scotland will provide a more integrated and effective approach to infrastructure policing in Scotland. A minority, myself included, did not support the general principles of the bill and instead support an alternative approach to devolved railway policing. Having said that, should the general principles of the bill be approved today, the committee considers that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. In the limited time, I can only cover some of the key issues. The first is retaining BTP officers and staff who have the specialist skills, knowledge and experience necessary to ensure that there is no reduction in the standard of railway policing provided. Should integration proceed, Police Scotland intends to maintain a specialist railway policing function within its broader structure. The policy memorandum states that this approach will retain the specialist skills, knowledge and experience that BTP officers and staff have built. However, retraining BTP officers and staff is largely dependent on whether their current terms, conditions, pension rights and benefits are guaranteed. Despite Scottish Government assurances, those representing BTP officers and staff have not been reassured. Clearly, that needs to be urgently resolved. The committee has therefore asked the Scottish Government to provide an update on progress during this debate and for an insurance that the terms, benefits and pensions of BTP officers and staff will not be adversely affected should integration proceed. I thank the cabinet secretary for his update, but remain extremely concerned that that is still unresolved. Section 3 of the bill provides constables of Police Scotland with a new power of entry in relation to specified railway property. The BTP officers receive personal track safety certificate training, which enables them to police all areas of the railway. The committee heard that every Police Scotland officer who is to police the railways will be required to have personal track safety certificates. Police Scotland told the committee that it intends to provide railway policing training for all Police officers but was not able to confirm the position regarding track safety certificates as it is undertaking training needs analysis. Therefore, the issue of whether the officers were to have personal track safety certificates remains a significant concern raised by railway operators. The committee therefore asked Police Scotland to provide details on its training needs, analysis and costs prior to stage 2. Rona Mackay I am sorry, but some members on the committee do not recall taking that evidence that is taking that information that all officers would require personal track certificates. Margaret Mitchell I refer a member to the report and, in particular, that the training would have to be the equivalent to that. What I have just explained is the operators saying that that maintains an issue that has not been resolved to date. I am happy to refer the member to the stage 1 debate. The committee therefore asked Police Scotland to provide details on its training needs analysis and costs prior to stage 2. Furthermore, if there are to be additional training costs, the committee considers that railway operators should not be asked to pay them. The Scottish Government has also been asked to provide clarity on that point. Other potential costs that are not identified in the financial memorandum include the set-up costs of integration and Police Scotland's additional payment for staff hours and salaries and its investment in ICT to ensure compatibility. Clarification on those costs and confirmation on who is to pay is required. A number of potential risks of integration associated with policing cross-border trains between Scotland and England were raised. It is imperative that police officers from both police forces are clear about their respective roles and legislative responsibilities and that jurisdictional arrangements are agreed prior to integration. The committee heard that Police Scotland and the British Transport Police may use different command and control systems to deal with incidents and apply different policies, for example in the use of tasers or firearms. Maintaining the safety and security of those travel by train is paramount and, therefore, protocols and procedures must be agreed prior to integration. In conclusion, the Justice Committee did not unanimously agree the general principles of the bill. It did agree on the number of issues that must be resolved should integration proceed. Crucially, the current high level of public confidence in rail travel must be maintained. I invite the cabinet secretary to respond to the issues that were raised in the committee report when standing up the debate. As you may know, I submitted an amendment to the minister's motion today. That amendment would have allowed Parliament a clear choice at decision time to either support the SNP's plans to break up the British Transport Police or support the Scottish Conservative proposal to see the British Transport Police continue in Scotland and across the UK, but with improved scrutiny and accountability to this Parliament. Although the Presiding Officer did not accept this amendment, it is something that he is aware that I will be returning to at decision time tonight. I would like to echo Margaret Mitchell's thanks to the many stakeholders who responded to the Justice Committee's call for evidence on the railway policing Scotland bill. Their expertise, feedback and advice have been invaluable, and it is on the basis of their insights that I make my remarks today. I would also like to pay tribute to the British Transport Police officers in Scotland who operate in the division. The prospect of professional change and upheaval is never an easy one, especially when it has been so protracted. Those men and women serve Scotland with distinction, and I hope that my comments today will adequately convey their concerns about the proposed merger with Police Scotland. However, let me be clear. Scottish Conservatives support the Smith commission's recommendations to devolve the functions of the British Transport Police to Scotland, but unlike those on the SNP benches, we recognise that there is more than one way to achieve this outcome. For years, the SNP has single-mindedly focused on the integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland, so much so that it did not even bother to include alternative approaches in the consultation that was launched last summer. Given that the British Transport Police Authority had already done the legwork and looked at the available options a year before the consultation went live, that omission seems the height of legislative laziness. The BTPA's paper sets out three approaches for the devolution of the BTP north of the border, including breaking up the BTP and absorbing its Scottish operations into Police Scotland. However, in the BTPA's experienced and professional opinion, that option could result in confusion over who would record and investigate crimes, it could risk compromising the joined-up method of policing our railways, it could jeopardise cross-border efforts to combat terrorism and extremism—all serious issues, all with serious implications. It is not unreasonable to suggest that those concerns were worthy of wider consultation by the Scottish Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Transport may not have thought so, but others certainly did. Such as train operator Cross Country, who described as unsatisfactory the consultation approach of not asking, should we do this, but how shall we do this? The rail delivery group also pointed out that integration was the only option on the table, because it can be done as opposed to there being a well-set-out argument as to why it should be done. That pretty much hits the nail on the head, because the vast majority of the evidence that the Justice Committee has heard provides no compelling argument in favour of full integration. In fact, it is the opposite. The Scottish Government is trying to tear up a specialist railway police service for no good reason at all, and that has been confirmed by a senior BTP officer, Deputy Chief Constable Hanstock, who said that he had not been able to identify any operational or economic benefits to integration. Instead, we are faced with a model that will, according to witnesses, increase delays for passengers and jeopardise their safety, result in a recoverable loss of expertise and dilute the unrivaled specialism of existing railway policing in Scotland. Why political ideology? The SNP's single-mindedness and its obsession with cutting ties with anything that includes the word British. However, that is, of course, their motives operandi. Full steam ahead, deal with consequences later. Except this time, even some of their own supporters have their concerns about proposed integration. One of them said of integration, of BTP Scotland into Police Scotland by the SNP, a party that I have been supported for a good number of years is undoubtedly one of the most petty and ill-informed political moves that I have witnessed, that from an SNP member. It is ill-informed because Police Scotland is still going through a period of reform and transformation that is projected to continue until at least 2026. It is a force that has faced crisis after crisis since its creation in 2013, from problems with call handling to the cancellation of the I6 project. It is a force that, by Police Scotland's own admission, has an elephant-sized deficit that it is going to eat one bite at a time. It is a force that is trying to get its own house in order, but under those proposals it will have to deal with a greater volume of arrests and emergency calls on a daily basis. Why then is the Scottish Government steaming ahead with proposals to fix the railway policing something that isn't broken? And why are the Scottish Government getting support from other parties in this Parliament—the Greens and the Liberal Democrats—who have supported it at committee stage? A committee report that has been agreed by a majority of SNP, Liberal Democrat and Green members, which still highlights concerns over training, the cost of training and indeed the wider transition costs. The Scottish Conservatives support the devolution of the functions of the British Transport Police, but we cannot support the Scottish Government's proposals to deliver that recommendation in their current form. I urge the Scottish Government, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider those proposals, and it's not too late to change their minds. To forge ahead, regardless, ignoring the advice of so many experts and professionals would be the wrong thing to do. Thank you very much, Mr Ross at Clare Baker, to open for Labour six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd also like to extend my thanks to the Justice Committee for the informative evidence sessions that they've held into this bill. As a substitute member, I was able to take part in the session with the railway operators. Indeed, it was those evidence sessions that highlighted the number of concerns regarding this bill that has helped us to reach our position today, and the Scottish Labour will not be supporting the general principles of this bill. Although the majority of the committee may have recommended to do so, there is a division amongst members. During the course of this afternoon, I hope that the Government will listen to those concerns, agree to withdraw this bill, and work with all interested parties and bodies to look at the full range of options available for the future of railway policing in Scotland. Scottish Labour is not against changes to policing in Scotland, and with policing in 2026, it is clear that Police Scotland and the SPA have much to change in order to secure wider public confidence and move on from the difficulties that have hindered them since its formation. It is right to question whether this is the right time to attempt a complex integration of transport police into the force. Therefore, Parliament, relevant bodies and the public must be fully confident that any new changes are warranted, supported and proportionate. MSPs today have received correspondence from RMT and from the STUC opposing the bill and continue to raise significant concerns about the erosion of specialised skills and expertise and the risk to safety and security. It has been argued that we are here today as a result of the Smith commission, however, it is worth remembering what was precisely agreed to within the Smith commission, which was for the functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland to be a devolved matter. There was no agreement on a specific model. An earlier this session in response to my colleague Richard Leonard, the Transport Minister in attempting to justify the bill said that the Government were elected on a manifesto promise to do what we are doing with BTP integration, that is the rationale behind what we are doing. As that was subsequently shown, there was no mention of such a model in the SNP's manifesto. Today's bill has never been put to the public via an election. There is no electoral mandate imposing such a model. What we have seen is that when the bill was introduced to public scrutiny through the Government consultation, it was widely criticised and it was rejected. That may be the reason why the bill was published five days before the analysis of the consultation responses. All three trade unions, with members working in the railway sector opposed the bill, and staff, officers and rail operators all continued to raise serious concerns. Those concerns include the impact on cross-rail border services, the potential reduction in the effectiveness to tackle major UK-wide issues such as terrorism, a reduction in jobs and a loss of expertise, increased costs for rail operators, the impact on the terms and conditions of service for BT officers and staff, and integration into a service that is already under huge financial pressure and still dealing with the impact of moving to a single police force. As highlighted in the committee's stage 1 report, there was concerns that the costs of railway policing are likely to increase as a result of integration, but it is still unclear as to what those costs might yet be or who should pay them. It is difficult to proceed with a bill that lacks clarity over the financial memorandum. Today's transport police is a model that works for us in Scotland, and I would like to take this moment to highlight the great work that is currently undertaken by the D division in Scotland. Covering thousands of kilometres of track and hundreds of stations, the officers and staff deserve our commendation for the work that they do in ensuring that our railways run safely and smoothly. Yet rather than looking at the models that would keep and reward such dedicated hard work, we have a Government introducing a bill to fix something that does not need to be repaired. I am not convinced by the arguments that integration would provide greater resources and flexibility and believe that we should pay attention to fears of reduced specialism and expertise. That is legislation that has been rushed. There is more than one option for the future of the railways transport police that would meet the objectives of the Smith commission, but those have not been given the proper scrutiny or consultation that they deserve. The option chosen is the most expensive, the one with the highest level of risk and the most complex way to achieve the Smith objectives. There is the option via a non-statutory devolved model of governance and accountability through administrative rather than legislative means. There is also an option for a statutory devolved model. Those are two options that were not given consideration through the public consultation. We believe that all options should be properly explored, yet instead we have a Government that is attempting to railroad legislation through Parliament. The rush to integrate de-division within Police Scotland with overview from the SPA, an organisation that itself is facing significant financial and governance issues, introduces a risk to transport policing, which is not, I believe, in the best interests of passengers. That bill has no manifesto mandate, no public support and very little industry support. That is a bill with operational concerns and serious financial uncertainties and unknowns. Therefore, that is a bill that Scottish Labour cannot support today, and I would urge the Government to reconsider the approach that it has taken so far towards this piece of legislation. The railway policing Scotland bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, which in my view will strengthen and complement the work of Police Scotland. Today it will be presented to you by some members, including a minority of members of the Justice Committee, in a negative light, unnecessarily, so I would argue. A majority of committee members do support the bill, and are my contribution to the debate today. I would like to focus on three main elements that I believe are fundamental and should be viewed positively. Public safety, ethos and security. During evidence taking, the committee heard from a variety of stakeholders, including railway operators, British Transport Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, trade unions and affiliated police organisations. Of course, there was a divergence of opinion in many areas, which in my view is no bad thing. That integration has to be successful, and it has to achieve public confidence with no stone left unturned regarding the detail of implementation. I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. You suggested at the start of your remarks that some members of this chamber would put an overly negative view on the proposals. Could she confirm to the chamber that, in fact, the majority of respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation and indeed the committee's call for evidence were against the proposals? The committee does not want that to go forward. Rona Mackay, I will not have you put words in my mouth. I am talking about this chamber, and I will go on. If you just let me proceed, I can go on to explain more. This integration has to be successful, and it has to achieve public confidence. Proposals to integrate the BTP into Scottish Police Service began in 2011 before the creation of Police Scotland. The Smith Commission agreed that the functions of British Transport Police in Scotland should be devolved. The fact is that British Transport Police is currently not accountable in Scotland. It is a UK force that is accountable to the British Transport Police Authority, the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State for Transport in England and Wales. Integrating BTP with Police Scotland will make it fully accountable to the people of Scotland entirely as it should be. With more than 93 million rail journeys made within Scotland each year and another 8 million cross-border rail journeys, it makes sense for BTP to be integrated to ensure full accountability to the people of Scotland and to the Scottish Parliament. There was concern among stakeholders and some members of the committee over the upskilling of existing police staff and whether the training was adequate. However, should the bill proceed, after 2019, every police officer will be trained in policing the railways, and they will get exactly the same three-week training that is currently only received by BTP officers. There are currently 285 full-time equivalent BTP officers in Scotland and over 17,000 regular police officers. In my view, integration can only improve the service to the rail network throughout Scotland and contribute to the safety of the general public. How can that be a bad thing? Rural areas that are currently not served by BTP would benefit by having specially trained officers on hand to deal with incidents. Everyone agrees that British Transport Police do and have consistently done a superbly professional job keeping the rail travelling public safe. To recognise and keep that specialism, Police Scotland has confirmed to the Scottish Parliament that a bespoke railway policing unit will be established for railway policing in Scotland. That would sit alongside the specialist road policing unit already in place. Those officers would receive additional training over and above the current training that is received by all officers, so that ethos and specialism would be enhanced not diminished. The committee did hear that there was concern that the cost of railway policing would increase as a result of integration, and we have requested that, should that happen, the Scottish Government will report to Parliament clarifying who would pay those additional costs. There was also concern over the transfer of BTP staff, their pay and conditions through the course of integration, as the minister outlined. I hope that the members in the chamber today are reassured by his commitment to the no detriment and the triple lock assurances that he has given them, but maybe the Tories need reminded of what triple lock actually means. The Minister for Transport and Islands gave the Transport Salaries Staff Association the same triple lock guarantee. The Scottish Government will apply the principle of no detriment across the board to the terms and conditions of BTP officers, and I welcome that as I understand the concern in this area. Throughout the negotiations process involving the joint programme board, the timescale of which has been described by Assistant Chief Constable Higgins as a luxury, the engagement between the Scottish Government and the railway industry has been praised by both sides. Graham Michael John of the Trans-Pennine Express said, The minister has been generous in giving us time to consider the issues, this is an opportunity for improved efficiency. Mr Lister also talked about, David Lister of Scotland Alliance talked about the opportunities for enhancing security at larger stations outwith the central belt, where specially trained staff from Police Scotland can respond to incidents earlier. On security cross-border policing, which already takes place between Scotland and the rest of the UK, will also be enhanced. Currently, Police Scotland's intelligence cells in the Gart Cross crime campus have access to real-time information that has to be relayed to BTP, and with integration there will be no need to do this, as the information will be put directly to the point where it was required. I thank committee member John Finnie for injecting a bit of reality into some of the areas that we discussed during evidence taking and during the committee procedure by highlighting his experience as a former police officer and the benefit of his experience was very useful. The integration of railway policing into Police Scotland's remit is simply common sense. It makes the service accountable to the people of Scotland, it enhances the excellent specialist provision and it increases security. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending the general principles of the railway policing Scotland bill to the chamber. SNP continues to claim that those changes must be made, that there are no other viable options, that everything was agreed at the Smith commission. However, as ever with this Scottish Government, that is only what they want us to hear. Indeed, that is all framed as some kind of common sense proposal and an operational necessity. However, the Government gave the game away when it decided to consult on only a single option. I thank the member for allowing me in in the intervention. Can he tell the chamber what his party put forward as an alternative? We have put forward our proposals here and we are putting forward our proposals now that we would like the organisation to be scrutinised here in the Scottish Parliament. We see absolutely no reason to tear up an organisation that is working successfully and to merge them into and merge the BTP into Police Scotland at a time when Police Scotland's own finances are unstable. The harsh reality is that this is just another ill-thought-out power grab, if you listen then you might hear. The harsh reality is that this is just another ill-thought-out power grab driven not by logic but by an ideological and constitutional obsession with control. It is change for change's sake. Indeed, during his appearance at the Justice Committee, the cabinet secretary himself stated that, by and large, British Transport Police provide a good service in Scotland and across the whole of the UK. I am afraid that I am not in the least bit convinced by the arguments that have been brought forward that, somehow, if only the Scottish Government, with its great track record on policing, were in full control of things, that everything with the British Transport Police would be even better. Instead, I am of the view that this will prove— Can I ask members not to chat across the chamber? I want to hear what Ms Mandell has to say. Please continue. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Instead, I am of the view that this will prove to be a repeat of the botched and unpopular Police Scotland integration. As ever, with the Scottish Government, it has full confidence in itself, but I am not so sure that current BTP officers share that optimism. Indeed, the British Transport Police Federation has already highlighted concerns with the plan, arguing that the current climate of policing in Scotland does not lend itself to integrating the BTP. As my colleague Douglas Ross has already highlighted, Deputy Chief Constable, Adrian Hanstock, from the BTP, has said that they have not been able to identify any operational or economic benefits to the merger. How come those who are dealing with these issues day in, day out, who have years of expertise are wrong and those who have overseen the disastrous and lengthy transformation period at Police Scotland know better? There are limited benefits and there are certainly risks. There is a real risk that that will result in a loss of specialist and institutional knowledge. The member does not agree that 17,000 police officers skilled in railway policing is better and offers more security than 285? I am pleased to have that confirmation from Rona Mackay that all 17,000 police officers across Scotland will be working full-time on the railways. Suddenly, all of the other issues that they are stretched to deal with at the moment will probably be saying that police stations in my constituency will not be closing any more, that suddenly everything is going to be wonderful and great and that we will be getting our call centre back in Dumfries and that suddenly we are going to have 17,000 new police officers just to police the railway. I just find that argument ludicrous and there are going to be big costs involved. What officers with the BTP Federation say is that they can guarantee that expertise would be lost and diluted and that there are a number of officers who would rather leave the force than come to work for Police Scotland with many of whom they would choose to retire. I remain convinced that the Government is trying to rush that merger and putting the integrity of the British Transport Police at risk. I am also worried about the supposed benefits of a single command and control system. The arguments around that sound good until you realise that there will not be one. Police Scotland, particularly when it comes to cross-border services, will continue to have to work very closely with the BTP because we have one railway network across the UK. As we have seen from a number of incidents, events that happen, even off the west coast mainline, can affect services as far as London, Birmingham and elsewhere across the UK. Instead of BTP managing that process seamlessly across the whole of the UK, we will have to see incidents reported by Police Scotland to the BTP and vice versa, because there are two different command and control systems. That is going to be especially the case in my own Dumfrieshire constituency, where a significant number of cross-border services run between Carlyle and Lockerbie. I believe that it is very important that we know how those things operate in practice, preferably before the bill moves through the Parliament. My constituents and local officers need to know what the operational intentions are instead of hiding behind some idea that we can find out about the nitty-gritty detail on that section of line after the horse is bolted. I am afraid that the Scottish Government does not seem to have the most basic of answers. Indeed, when I asked the cabinet secretary, in principle, if he would be open to British transport police officers based in Carlyle, continuing to police that section of the railway, he said that he would have no problem with that at all in principle. If that is not about where officers are based, we are left instead with this argument that the only benefit to all of that is about scrutiny and accountability. Can I get you to conclude, please? It is only about scrutiny and accountability. However, with a number of unpopular transformational changes still on-going in Police Scotland, including proposals to close police stations in my constituency and a budget that seems to be out of control, people will wonder how accountable the Scottish Government is going to be to them on policing matters. Thank you. I call Fulton MacGregor. We are followed by Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate on the railway posting bill. As a member of the Justice Committee, I would like to pay tribute to the committee members for the scrutiny of the bill. Although it was not a unanimous agreement on the general principles, as has been stated, I would like to thank the convener Margaret Mitchell for the way in which she has approached the matter, gaining much consensus, as she said, in her own speech across various areas. I was not going to mention something before standing up, but I think I will. I would also like to give Margaret Mitchell credit for the way that she dealt with members of her own party. One member of her party should be Douglas Ross, who again today has played the flag card shamefully in his own speech, and does it most subtly in the committee quite regularly. I have never actually met somebody in this chamber as much as Mr Ross, who would rather be somebody else. I would caution the member about being too personal in attacks. The way in which you say it. I was responding to something that was said in the debate. I think that it is worth remembering, as others have said, that the devolution, if BTP, was agreed by all parties and asked Oliver Mundell what his party had put into the Smith commission in an intervention. It has also been the Scottish Government policy for some time, and it will come as no surprise to him in the chamber that I believe that our country, our Parliament and our services such as Police Scotland are more than capable of taking on this integration and running our own affairs like any other normal country. Therefore, I fully welcome the move. Douglas Ross? I am grateful and I will try to be as pleasant as I can be. You suggest that this Parliament, this country and such like can take on the powers of scrutinising and accountability of the British Transport Police. Will you accept that that is exactly what the British Transport Police Authority proposed as one of its three potential models a year before your Government went out on consultation on only one model, which was to totally destruct the British Transport Police and merge it into Police Scotland? Before you respond, Ms Breger, can I remind members not to use the term you, to talk about the member, please? Thank you, Mr Greger. Thank you, Presiding Officer. No, I will accept that the proposal has been put forward by this Government, and I think that that is what we should concentrate on. It is a shame that the two of the parties in the chamber have not supported it, but that is, obviously, their right to do so. I believe that that integration will provide a more integrated and effective approach to infrastructure policing in Scotland and ensure, as others have said, that it is accountable to the people of Scotland. The bill seeks to enhance current working practices, have them embedded into statute and ensure that the industry has a strong voice in the development of railway and what is important to them. Integrating BTP in Police Scotland is an opportunity to improve and enhance railway policing in Scotland, and we have heard a lot of evidence in the committee, including from Graham Michael John, TransPenny and Express, who said that there is an opportunity for things to improve in Scotland and for the force in England and Wales to up its game and improve as well. There is an opportunity for improved efficiency. As has been mentioned already, there have been concerns raised about training. Those were legitimate, and I am glad that the committee scrutinised the issue so thoroughly. All Police officers in Scotland will be trained in railway policing at increasing coverage across the whole of Scotland. Should the bill proceed, CEC Higgins confirmed that, post-2019, every Police Scotland officer will be trained in policing the railways and improving the service provided to the railway network throughout Scotland. As my colleagues have already said, currently, in Scotland, officers complete an 11-week training course at the Scottish Police College at Tolley Arlen, after which the BTP officers have an additional three weeks of training. Police Scotland have confirmed that, should the integration proceed, all will receive that training. As has already been said as well, and I feel that some of the facts are getting repeated, there are currently 285 full-time equivalent BTP officers in Scotland and over 17,000 regular police officers, meaning that the number of officers with railway policing training in Scotland will be significantly enhanced. Surely, that is something that we can all welcome across the chamber. Would all those officers then have personal track safety certificates? I do not believe that they will have. However, to have 17,000 officers with the training is, to my mind, a significant enhancement in which it has been supported by most parties. Giving evidence to the Justice Committee of Police Scotland made it clear that specialist railway policing expertise and capacity will be maintained and protected within the broader structure of Police Scotland. It is worth mentioning that members have received a briefing today from the Samaritan Scotland regarding suicide prevention skills. As we know, a lot of suicides can happen on the railways. I would encourage the aim that that is a speciality that is also maintained if and when the integration occurs. It is also fitting that we talk about that today, given that it is mental health-awareness this week. Cross-border policing, as some have mentioned, will be continued to be seamless in both directions, as it is between the UK and mainland Europe and the border in Ireland at the moment. I do not believe that when integration occurs that there would be any difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so I do not think that that is a concern either. There is no doubt that British Transport Police do a fantastic job, but that has never been in any doubt. However, it is about us taking forward a service that delivers uniquely for Scotland, and it is accountable to this Parliament. In some places, that is already happening. Indeed, I spoke to a ScotRail train driver just the other day who told me that he and his colleagues are working late shifts at night and there is any trouble on the train or at stations that they arrive at, that the Police Scotland is there first response, not because that is anything wrong with the BTP response but because the infrastructure for Police Scotland is already there and the correct response can be guaranteed. The committee has had a good scrutiny of the bill. I am pleased that the support has been cross-party, including the Greens and the Liberals. Police Scotland has said that the transit will be seamless, and I have every faith that it will be. I am happy to support the motion that was brought forward by the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is no doubt that the Smith commission envisages the much greater role for this Parliament in relation to railway policing. However, we are profoundly wrong to suggest that the integration of BTP into Police Scotland is somehow a requirement or a stipulation of the Smith agreement. It is not. There is no reason why the devolution of the British Transport Police in Scotland should mean the dissolution of the British Transport Police in Scotland. The British Transport Police provide a good service to the travelling public, a highly effective organisation that is built up a specialism over many years. There is no reason for the Parliament to unpick that service, but it appears that the Scottish National Party has a problem with the British Transport Police. Breaking up the British Transport Police is a choice, a political choice, a nationalist choice, not a necessity. In response to the Smith agreement, the British Transport Police Authority set out a range of options, including alternatives to the integration, that allow us to retain the BTP as a specialist police service, with enhanced accountability to this Parliament. However, it is telling that the SNP only consulted on one option integration into Police Scotland. No wonder the British Transport Police Federation, the body representing British Transport Police officers in Scotland, believed that this bill is being driven by political ideology. In neither evidence to the Justice Committee or in the Government's consultation is the majority support for the options that they have chosen. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, the committee of this Parliament responsible for transport matters, did not take any evidence on this bill at all. It is a little wonder that people are out there questioning whether this Parliament is properly scrutinising legislation when such issues occur. Perhaps if the Transport Committee had taken evidence on the future of transport police, it would have found, just as the Scottish Government and the Justice Committee did, that there are huge areas of concern in the sector about those proposed changes. Concerns that the case for integration has not been made, that the SNP Government is committing to one course of action against the weight of evidence and industry opinion. As Douglas Ross said, the rail operator across country said that the SNP is not asking, should we do this, but how shall we do this? The rail delivery group who has said that the approach seems to be because it can be done as opposed to setting out an argument as to why it should be done. I will take an intervention if you want to. I thank the member for giving way. Is he arguing for specialist police forces in all other sectors? For example, would he have a specialist police force for IT, for forestry or for other things? I am arguing that we should listen to the rail operators, we should listen to the trade unions, we should listen to the police officers about your Government's proposal that does not seem to have support amongst any of those organisations. In addition to those concerns, we have concerns from Nigel Goodband of the British Transport Police Federation, who has said that there has been no acknowledgement of our views or those of the police officers whom we represent, because a simple decision has been taken that there is only one option, that of full integration. That is a damning indictment of the SNP Government's position. Police officers put their lives on the line to protect our safety, and this SNP Government is completely ignoring the views of our dedicated police officers. We should listen to them, because we know from our experience of Police Scotland the pitfalls and the dangers in pushing through sweeping changes to policing without consensus. It is no surprise that the Greens are supporting the SNP on this one, but it is astonishing to see the Liberal Democrats, such ardent opponents of the creation of a single police force, doing nothing to defend a proven positive approach to railway policing. It looks like they are making themselves accessories in the dismantling of the British Transport Police in Scotland. There may be support for the merger in this chamber, but the SNP Government has simply been unable to demonstrate any public support, demand or consent for this policy whatsoever. I will take an intervention if you want to tell me who supports your policy. I have tried to listen for four and a half minutes to the member. What is the proposal that he is putting forward, and how much would it cost? For the Transport Committee, did his members also demand that the Transport Committee look at the bill, and if not, why not? Neil Bibby? Labour members did ask for the committee to look at that issue. In fact, I wrote to the convener, Mr Yousaf. We are saying that we need to come up with a model that has support from the rail unions, from the operators, from the industry and from police officers. Your proposals do not have the support of any of those organisations. As Claire Baker said, no manifesto commitment was ever given by the SNP to take forward the breakup of the British Transport Police. The Transport Minister had to apologise to Parliament, he will remember, for suggesting that there was a manifesto mandate. Perhaps the Transport Minister should listen to the views of the railway workers who, unlike him, are transport experts. Every one of the trade unions and staff organisations representing rail workers is opposed to the measures that I have taken to. The STUC contacted us today, united in their opposition to the bill. They passed a motion at their congress saying that the Government's determination flies in the face of serious misgivings expressed by trade unions, BTP officers, staff and railway workers. The RMT has warned that effectively abolishing the BTP in Scotland will result in an inferior service. In evidence to the Justice Committee, the RMT's Mick Hogg said that we have not ruled out the option of taking industrial action to retain BTP officers in the railways because we are concerned about the safety of railway staff and passengers on trains in Scotland. Rail workers are warning that the bill could lead to yet more industrial action on the railways, not to strike over terms and conditions, but industrial action to protect the workforce and the travelling public. That is how central they believe that the future of railway policing is to public safety. The Transport Minister, Humza Yousaf, has been warned but appears happy to proceed with a bill that may result in industrial action and disruption for Scotland's passengers. There will be consequences for passing the bill and there will be consequences for the transport minister and he will be held responsible for them. As Clare Baker said, the Government is trying to railroad the bill through Parliament, a bill that the workers do not want and the passengers simply do not need. They cannot explain how that will make our railways any safer or how it will make specialist railway policing any better. There is no mandate for the bill, no rationale for the bill, no popular support for the bill and Scottish Labour will vote against it today. I wonder if the Presiding Officer could perhaps give later speakers some guidance as to how much time they might expect to have. Bear in mind that I am well aware of what the timings are. I am trying to allow a little bit of additional time for interventions because I do not want to kill debate, but I will give adequate warning to the summing-up speakers, as I usually do, if there is a slight curtailment of their time. However, I think that it is better to allow interventions across the chamber than none at all. Thank you for your interest, Mr Stevenson. I call Mr Finnie Follabyllian MacArthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it is fair to record that there are very strong views on the subject on all sides. I have two dear friends and neighbours who are greatly concerned about force amalgamations. I have to tell you that the force amalgamation that they are concerned about was Inverness Borough Police with Inverness County Police in 1968. I get and absolutely get that people are concerned about change. It is important that everyone here recognises that. It is very rare that I am not on the same side as the RMT as a member of the RMT group, the RMT, the TSA, ASLEF and their position. Their position is about a genuine concern about safety, and that has to be addressed. The concern of British Transport Police officers is the word that we have often heard, and that is the ethos. Those are individuals who have chosen to serve the public by joining a sphere of policing. They did not choose to join Northern Constanbury, Grampian, Cumbria or Northumbria, whether they chose to join that. That has to be recognised, too. There is a very proud history that attaches itself to that, and there is a very singular focus. The training for officers across Scotland is the same. British Transport Police officers then go on to get subsequent training, and, of course, Police Scotland officers will have alternative training. I have to say that the health and safety of police officers' rail staff and the public is of paramount consideration to me. We know that Police Scotland will embrace the proposal if Parliament passes it, and we have heard a lot of information from ACC Higgins about the specialist training. A very keen supporter of what I hear from Mr Higgins is very good. I thought that it was a very ambitious statement that he made about the level of training. It is right that our report talks about a training needs analysis and the scrutiny that we will have to do with that. The question about who pays is addressed by the question of railway policing arrangements. The report talks about the requirement for the Scottish Police Authority to set up a formal mechanism and to have meaningful engagements, and people have talked about the difficulties that have been with the police service and the difficulty with the police authority. Absolutely. That is the case, but we must move on and keep the single focus on the service delivery to the public. Some of the aspects that will be picked up on the policing arrangements will be new powers of entry and the abolition of the British Transport Police Authority. We know that the rail operators are setting priorities and objectives, and that is quite right. They are concerned about change and have to be taken on board. However, what must be remembered is that the different arrangement in which I take a great deal of comfort about the protection of the present quota of railway police staff is that it will be a commercial arrangement between the train operators and the police authority on behalf of Police Scotland. I have to tell you that it is not the arrangement that I would want, because I would want it to have publicly owned rail so that it is the public sector among itself. However, as things stand at the moment, that is how it is. That ethos is about efficiency, and we have particularly heard about the different approach to British Transport Police to deal with fatalities in the line, compared with Police Scotland. A particular example, given which I will not repeat where Police Scotland officers attended a scheme in the overall period, took longer. However, that is precisely why that expertise will be retained. It was explained about that, within a relatively short time, a delay in the lines in Scotland can result in trains backing up in the south-east of England. I also think that there is an opportunity for Police Scotland to learn from the British Transport Police in relation to that. Clearly, there is a balance about efficiency. We do not want scant operations and investigation into fatality just to get the trains running, but it is quite clear that there are methods that the BTP has mastered the practical investigative skills to get things going. I pose the question, why would that be altered? It is in no-one's interest to be an altered. I, indeed, have not heard suggestions that it would be. We know that Police Scotland wants to retain those specialist skills. I would not ordinarily say how many police officers there are in an area, but the British Transport Police Chief Constable told us that there were five, five-based and number-S.  I will not repeat all the statistics about officer numbers, but it is simply a fact that, if there is a police requirement in the Highlands and Islands, just statistically, nothing to do with who does it best or where they come from, statistically likely that it is a Police Scotland officer that is going to attend. Now, in the principles of the Christie commission on collaborative working, I have to say that one of the areas of concern that I have had is some of the ill-informed comment about the threat level and the response to terrorism. Let me assure the public that it is an entirely co-ordinated system that applies at the moment, and that it will be an entirely co-ordinated system that will apply where the proposal to go ahead. The concerns that people have about different systems of working, while the systems of working that apply in the rest of GB, where there are 43 police forces, clearly there are 44 systems. If that goes ahead, there will be two systems in Scotland. There are long-standing arrangements that were picked up— Members, in his last 30 seconds. Sorry, there are long-standing arrangements about cross-border policing. I just want to touch on the key issues, because I heard the minister giving assurance about no detriment, but with the greatest respect, minister, it is not me you have to persuade, and it clearly remains the case that there are others who are required to be persuaded. We know that there is joint working at the UK level. I have to say that, from the public perspective, the polis are a polis. They do not make any distinctions. I will leave it there. Thank you very much. I thank all those who have contributed to the Justice Committee's evidence. So far, we have been helped by the willingness of stakeholders to share their views and insights on any lack of clarity that remains around the bill in critical areas is not as a result of any lack of candor on their part. I would also like to thank Spice and our clerks for aiding us through the process. And the committee colleagues who have ensured that the bill has been robustly tested so far, from the tone of the debate so far. I think that that will continue. That is entirely right of any bill. It is particularly right where the implications of the bill in question remain so unclear. I will come to some of the questions that I feel that remain to be answered shortly, but let me first address the myth that is repeatedly promoted by ministers, that the bill simply discharges the will of the Smith commission. That is disingenuous, while the Smith commission did indeed state that the functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter. Subsuming BTP within Police Scotland is only one option for delivering this outcome. Granted, it has been the option long preferred by the SNP, but it is just one of three options identified by the working group set up by the BTPA. As we heard in evidence at our round table, it also happens to be the one with the highest degree of risk, and one that was opposed by the majority of those who responded both to the Government's consultation as well as to the committee's call for evidence. An alternative would have been to give the Scottish Government statutory powers to direct the BTPA and ultimately specify the direction of railways policing in Scotland, ensuring that the chief constable of BTP engages with the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament in much the same way as the chief constable of Police Scotland. Responsibility for pensions, employment contracts and defraining the costs of policing to the rail industry would remain with the BTPA, but the SPA would have a greater involvement in the strategic and planning level. A third option identified by the BTPA would achieve devolution through administrative means, looking at practical ways to increase the BTPA's accountability to Scottish institutions and greater alignment with Police Scotland. Sadly, no attempt was made by Ministers to seek views on either of these latter options, options that would have minimised their option to a service that, time and again, we heard in committee as operating smoothly, efficiently and in a highly professional manner across the UK. Ultimately, that failure to consider and consult on those other options has weakened Ministers' case for their preferred approach. As for that approach, I believe that the bill should be allowed to proceed to the next stage. Ministers have their work cut out to address the serious concerns ahead of stage 3. Concerns about how the specialist expertise of BTPA can be maintained and developed post-merger, concerns about how RPAs are likely to operate, costs assigned and potential disputes resolved, and concerns also about Police Scotland's ability to take on these additional functions and responsibilities, while still facing serious, on-going challenges as a result of the botched centralisation driven through by the Government in the last Parliament, egged all the time along the way by Douglas Ross's colleagues and indeed Neil Bibby's colleagues. On the issue of retaining expertise that is absolutely vital to the safety of passengers and workers in Scotland's railways, that will, of course, require agreement to be reached on terms and conditions post-transfer. The Minister for Police Scotland was bullish about that in evidence, and again this afternoon, the unions appear less convinced. Yet those currently employed by Police Scotland, facing difficult times ahead based on the evidence of the policing 2026 strategy, will be watching closely to see how those negotiations develop. The more that is conceded to BTPA, the more difficult it may be to persuade those in Police Scotland that they are being treated fairly. The latter, of course, will also now be expected to undergo two weeks of training in railways policing, according to ACC Higgins. The cost of delivering a force-wide training package such as this is still unclear. It seems inconceivable though that this will still be enough for Police Scotland officers to gain the certificates necessary to access safely all parts of the railway environment. Meantime, concerns were expressed that whatever the cost of this force-wide training turned out to be, they will inevitably find their way into the RPAs, particularly given the financial straits in which Police Scotland finds itself. Indeed, the committee expressed its disappointment and a lack of detail on the cost set out in the financial memorandum. Far more clarity is needed about what those costs of integration are likely to be and how they will be met. This is all the more important, given some of the concerns that have also been raised about the dispute resolution for RPAs, a point picked up by the Law Society in their briefing for this debate. Finally, let me address the issue of timing. Even where full integration of BTP within Police Scotland felt to be the most sensible and logical route to take and most witnesses, as they said, did not, it can scarcely be claimed by anyone other than its most ardent supporters that this is an ideal time to be contemplating such a move. Chronic levels of structural debt, a failed IT project that has left efficiency targets tough if not impossible to achieve and morale that could certainly be better. Surely only Police Scotland's worst enemy could see this as an opportune moment to be foisting a further merger upon the organisation. The Auditor General for Scotland recently highlighted continuing concerns around financial management. Promise savings from centralisation have simply not materialised. Against this backdrop, the timing of the Government's bill looks highly questionable. As I said in committee, I remain open to being persuaded that the concerns that I have set out and others can be addressed. If they are not, Scottish Liberal Democrats will be unable to support the passing of the bill at stage 3. Thank you very much. Throughout the evidence sessions heard by the Justice Committee on the railway policing bill, one thing was made clear by all those who gave both written and oral evidence. That was the professionalism of the British Transport Police and nothing but praise for the job that they do in keeping our railways and the passengers that use them safe. I would start by commending them for that work because I think that it is really important to remember here that the proposed integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland isn't about fixing a broken system, as has been suggested around the chamber today. It is about making railway policing work better for all of Scotland, making it accountable to the people of Scotland and looking to the opportunities to build on the current system of railway policing across the country based on the recommendations of the Smith commission. Based on the evidence that we received, I believe that there are advantages to being achieved as a result of integration and opportunities for improvement should the process proceed. The first of those is in terms of the location, the geographical spread of the officers and the resulting opportunities to enhance the police service across the whole rail network in Scotland. Currently, the British Transport Police maintains a focus in the central belt, positioning most of its officers there while leaving many stations in the rest of Scotland, including three in my constituency unstaffed. We received supplementary written evidence from chief constable Paul Crowther of British Transport Police that there are currently 262 officers in Scotland who are predominantly based in the central belt. Out with that area, there tend to be on average about six officers at some of the bigger stations compared to 54 here in Edinburgh and upwards of 20 at the stations in Glasgow. As it stands, if an incident occurs at one of those unmanned stations such as those in my constituency or elsewhere in rural Scotland, police Scotland officers could more often than not be the first to arrive on scene, not the British Transport Police. Assistant Chief Constable Higgins of Police Scotland outlined in evidence to the committee that should the bill proceed, the force will undergo an upskilling programme for all serving officers to the level of inspector on railway policing, as we have heard today, and will include additional weeks of training in railway policing for all new officers. That would mean that post-integration, if an incident occurred at an untended station, as many are out with the central belt, there would be greater confidence that those responding were adequately trained in how to handle the situation. That general upskilling of all officers can only be a good thing. I am genuinely interested in what that would mean for personal track safety certificates. Is the member saying that all officers would have that? A point that I answered today in the chamber. That may be something that all officers do not have, but there is more information to come forward on that as well, which we did not receive through the committee. Additionally, Chief Superintendent Croson of the Association for Scottish Police Superintendent said that, should integration go ahead, the ability of Police Scotland to consistently and easily use its resources in railway policing, which British Transport Police currently has to request, could lead to an enhancement of service. In supplementary evidence to the committee, we heard that, in 2016, there were 1,749 incidents recorded on the Police Scotland storm unity command and control system as an external force request, which British Transport Police is categorised as. There were also 4,500 calls received by Police Scotland from the British Transport Police. There is clearly much crossover between the two forces currently, which would be streamlined and more adequately dealt with should the integration of the two forces go ahead under one command structure. I understand that there are many fears and concerns associated with the proposed integration, and we heard much about some of those issues in our evidence sessions. Foremost in that and what has to be ensured during this process if it goes ahead is that the specialist knowledge, expertise and the ethos that John Finnie talked about within the British Transport Police is retained. Those points were directly addressed by Police Scotland in their evidence to the committee. They outlined their plans to create a specialist railway policing division within their ranks that will draw on the experience and expertise of current British Transport Police Scotland officers, while also providing general railway policing training to all officers, creating a better trained base without losing the knowledge and ability of the specialist group. We were given assurances that those who wish to continue to police the railways will do exactly that, as we heard outlined by the minister. The funding for training was raised as a concern. Both Police Scotland and the Transport Minister in their evidence highlighted that training costs should be met from the efficiency savings to be made, but as that progresses and the full training needs are assessed by the joint programme board, there will be a clearer picture of that moving forward. The committee has asked that the Scottish Government report back to the Parliament about that. One of the main fears, however, was the transfer of current British Transport Police employees over the security of their salaries and employment. The TSA presented with evidence of a survey that showed that 37.5 per cent said that it intended to leave if integration went ahead, but the majority of that was based on the belief that it would be made redundant. We have heard that that would not be the case, and we have also heard about the triple lock guarantee that has been given by the Scottish Government. However, as John Finnie suggested, it is not really up to the members to be persuaded. There is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done there to persuade staff members and British Transport Police officers that that will be the case. The railway policing bill has raised questions and clarity is still needed in some areas, in detail that is currently being worked on by the joint programme board. Questions that I trust will be answered as the bill progresses. I can completely understand some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the fears that have been held by staff affected with any big change that is going to happen, but I strongly support the general principles of the bill. Thank you very much. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Ben Macpherson, Mr Kerr, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The biggest concern with the railway policing Scotland bill, and specifically the proposal for integration of the British Transport Police's Scottish division into Police Scotland, is simply this. It does not make sense. The Smith Commission recommended bringing the staff and powers of the BTP within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. In 2015, the Scottish Government said, we believe that the functions of the British Transport Police should be integrated within Police Scotland. That will ensure the most efficient and effective delivery of all policing in Scotland. The committee heard that the BTP authority set out three ways in which the devolution of functions could be achieved, but the Scottish Government consulted on one, merger, the option that the BTPA called the most complex route to devolution, and it is the only one being brought forward, apparently simply because it is Mr Matheson's long-term ambition. Nevertheless, let's take efficient and effective delivery as the required destination. Will the merger deliver? Well, not according to the rail delivery group, which says that integrating the service is not in the interests of passengers, nor the BTP, who have warned a deep and clear understanding of the unique requirements of the railway, will be lost. Nor the BTP Federation, who warned of the potentially life-threatening consequences, nor the RMT, who says that specialist policing on the railways will be lost forever and will adversely impact the safety and security of rail workers and passengers. John Mason? Police Scotland do a lot of specialist things. Is it not slightly insulting to them to say that they couldn't handle the railways? Liam Kerr? Absolutely not. ScotRail cites the Netherlands, where the railway police have been incorporated into a single national police corps and note great difficulties. They express concerns and warn that there would be a loss of specialism. It doesn't make sense. Make no mistake, this is about specialists. According to Railway magazine, the BTP understands the industry's safety, culture and operations and is part of the railway family. It has been comprehensively reviewed by both Government and independent bodies four times since 2001, more than any other police force in the country and is all unanimous. It is efficient and effective already and should be kept as a specialist and separate force for the whole of the British railway network. Chief Constable Crowther told the committee that railway policing is substantially different. Those are specialists with specialist skills. The committee heard evidence that fatalities that are responded to by officers inexperienced in railway policing take 50 per cent longer to deal with and that cable theft offences take 33 per cent longer to manage and that train operators claim to have a level of confidence that the BTP will hand the service back to the train operator within 70 minutes. No time, thank you. An incident at Carluke, which Police Scotland handled, took 107 minutes and the resultant delayed incurred costs of approximately £160,000. Finally, the Samaritans highlight the specialist skills that the BTP has in dealing with suicides as well as traumatised staff in the wake of train-line deaths. Will that resource remain available? Cross-country were concerned that post-merger BTP officers will be deployed to non-railway duties in an attempt to fill funding and resource gaps, leaving the network diluted and under resourced. This is important. The BTP officers report themselves due to the uncertainty over terms of conditions and pensions that staff might leave, impacting experience, operational capability and service delivery. The committee convener, just earlier on, raised funding issues. At present, 95 per cent of the funding for the BTP comes jointly from the train operating companies, Network Rail and London Underground. However, as the BTP authority itself pointed out in its submission to the Public Audit Committee in January, there are centralised police support functions provided by BTP that would need to be replicated in Scotland in an eventual merger. That will need to be reconciled with budget pressures. No, those proposals do not make sense. The committee also heard that there will be confusion and delays to crime-solving arising from two forces operating across Britain. To say nothing of BTP officers not having legal jurisdiction to operators constables in Scotland. BTP officers are trained and authorised to carry tasers, yet in Scotland only specialist firearms officers are so armed. Police Scotland Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins suggested that BTP officers dealt with 25 to 30 bomb threats a month due to abandoned baggage and hundreds of incidents where people are either restrained from jumping or removed from the tracks in close proximity to death. Specialist stuff, indeed, requiring specialist joined up action. The committee also heard about the implications for specialist trains such as those carrying nuclear weapons, MOD trains and the Royal train having to switch officers at Carlisle to a generalist. An incident occurring on the down line at Allen Mouth and continuing to Dunbar is who's jurisdiction. Which forces in charge does it change? Do the BTP jump off and Police Scotland jump on at the border? Deputy Presiding Officer, it does not make sense to pursue this merger when the rail operators, the rail unions, the travelling public, the BTP Federation and the BTP itself don't want it. It does not make sense to pursue this merger when Deputy Chief Constable Hanstock remarks that we have not been able to identify any operational or economic benefits. It does not make sense to pursue this merger when the potential impacts on cross-border capabilities are so compromised. Michael Matheson appears to be the first MSP in history to attempt to deploy the Chewbacca defence to justify these proposals. I hope he will be the last. Parliament should ensure sense that the interests of safer Scottish rail services prevail. Vote no at 5.30 this afternoon. I am proud to support the principles of the railway policing Scotland bill today and to speak in favour of the Government motion. As has already been mentioned, a majority of the justice committee supports the general principles of the bill, including John Finnie and Liam McArthur. I am grateful for their contributions throughout the evidence session. I came to this issue objectively and have been reassured through the evidence sessions around issues of capacity, ethos, specialism and abstraction, and I will touch on all of them shortly. I was also enthused through the evidence sessions about the opportunity that the bill will create. As Mary Evans pointed out, legislation is not about fixing something that is broken. It is about how you use the law and government policy in order to improve service. Integrating the British Transport Police in Police Scotland as proposed in the bill has the potential to improve railway policing across Scotland and a better service for all of Scotland. Integration can enhance policing by allowing direct access to the specialist and operational resources of Police Scotland and by making a more integrated and effective service that will strengthen and complement what is being offered at present. Operators have stated support for this. As Fulton MacGregor pointed out, Transpena and Express have suggested that it is an opportunity. Also, Darren Horley from Virgin Trains, who obviously operates the east coast mainline, said, for Virgin Trains' point of view, it is an opportunity. From an operational point of view in terms of Police Scotland, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins has stated that this is a sensible move. Contrary to what Liam Kerr said, this is a sensible move. Police Scotland currently looks after the entire transport network in Scotland, so it is sensible for it to look after the rail network as well. In terms of capacity, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins also stated that the reality is that Police Scotland is the second-largest force in the United Kingdom, with some 17,000 officers and assets that are simply not available to the British Transport Police D Division. Although at present Police Scotland will deploy assets on request to the British Transport Police, it will be able to do so routinely should integration take place. That will lead to a greater effectiveness and efficiency in the view of Assistant Chief Constable Higgins and a greater ability to deploy more resource to locations that currently do not receive them, and that is the benefit to the whole of Scotland. Indeed, BTP Chief Constable Crowther stated that Police Scotland has the full range of specialist capabilities available to it. In terms of operational capabilities, Police Scotland has everything that it needs to police the railway. In terms of capacity, the resources are there, and in the opportunity, the economies of scale that can be provided by integration, there is strong support from Police Scotland and operators. There has been much talk in the debate today already about two things that I think are important specialism and abstraction, but one thing that I would like to raise that is not being mentioned yet is the question of ethos. The British Transport Police mentioned in its written evidence and in oral evidence to the committee that maintenance of a transport policing ethos is important should integration take place. I was reassured when the cabinet secretary said to committee that the current ethos will be recognised and maintained and taken forward in how railway policing is delivered. Again, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins reassured the committee that there is a strong ethos in BTP that Police Scotland would want to retain. One of Police Scotland's strengths is not necessarily its single ethos or aim of keeping people safe, but the multiple cultures that they have within the organisation, and they would look to maintain British Transport policing ethos within that. I think that it is very important to remember that there have been strong commitments that specialism will be maintained and that the extra training that will take place through the training of police officers going forward is to, in addition to the specialist entity, the policing function that would remain within Police Scotland. I think that it is very important to clarify that a specialist policing function will remain within Police Scotland should integration take place, and the additional training will be over and above and create added value. In terms of abstraction, we in the committee had some concerns at the beginning and took evidence around the possibility that abstraction may occur. That was articulated in the recommendation 95 of the report. I was reassured by the Scottish Government's response that Police Scotland has given the committee clear assurances that railway police officers would not be abstracted to other duties, except for with the obvious exception of a crisis situation. I warmly welcome that, because I think that that is an incredibly important point. I am mindful of time, and I just like to also state that I welcome that the dialogue between the Scottish Government and operators and other parties involved has been constructive, and I hope that that continues going forward. I also welcome that with regard to terms and conditions, access to the current pension schemes is an important point, and I welcome the minister's positive statements on that. We are followed by Stuart Stevenson. Mr Stevenson, fair warning, will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Stevenson will probably get six minutes. I am speaking in opposition to the Scottish Government's plans to abolish the BTP in Scotland, not only as a Labour MSP, but also as I am convener of the RMT's parliamentary group. Of course, it is not only Labour and the RMT who oppose the legislation. STUC policy is to oppose, and that was confirmed at STUC 2017 last month. The BTP officers themselves do not want it, the BTP Federation do not want it, all of the rail unions certainly do not want it, even train operators do not want it and, based on the responses to the Government's consultation, very few of the public want it either. If the SNP simply batter on against the majority opinion and introduce this unwanted legislation, what might the consequences be? Well, not only will we have a railway operated by companies abroad, it is expensive to use and is regularly disrupted, but we will also have no dedicated police force to look after it with the specialist skills of some of our transport officers at risk of being lost, and that would lead, in my opinion, to a less safe railway. We are already hearing about officers leaving the BTP in Scotland to transfer to units in England and Wales so that they do not have to be part of Police Scotland and can keep their specialist status. I will take an intervention from Fulton MacGregor, who took one from me earlier. Fulton MacGregor, to the member for taking intervention. I realise how opposed she is to this motion and the general principles of the bill, but I am just wondering if she knows why her party did not put forward something for the chamber to vote on tonight, or were they just depending on the Tory motion being accepted? I thank the member for the intervention. The party is against this proposal, as are the unions, as are the other bodies that I have outlined, and that is the side that we are on this evening. That is the way that we will vote against the legislation this evening, plus there was only one option consulted on and, frankly, that is pretty outrageous. The minister and others mentioned Police Scotland's assistant chief constable, Bernard Higgins, but even he acknowledged that there was a risk that the skills base will be diluted. The Scottish Government seems to be trying to say that that will be the most efficient and effective way of policing our railways, but when I hear Governments talking about efficiencies, that tends to mean one thing, and it is cuts. However, the reality of that change is that it will cost more. The STUC only today has expressed concern about the inadequate provision in the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill. The RMT has said that those reforms will require rail service operators on both sides of the border, particularly where the service crosses the border, to have the same operational agreement with two separate police forces. Currently, there is only one railway policing agreement that is required, so that means unnecessary spending at a time of cuts to other public services. Then there are practical issues of actually policing the rail infrastructure. The RMT stated in oral evidence to the Justice Committee on 14 March that Police Scotland would not have access to our railways if there was a derailment, a collision or any trespass on a railway. If Police Scotland officers do not have a personal track safety certificate, they cannot go on or near the running line. I would like to know if the Government is seriously proposing that we would have officers dealing with railways who cannot attend the scene of a crime, because if that is the case, that is deeply worrying. A further concern from the RMT and the other unions is that there is no statutory requirement in the bill for rail unions to be consulted when going ahead with those reforms. That is the kind of approach to trade unions that we might expect from a Tory administration. However, perhaps it shows that it is easy for the SNP to make promises about working in partnership with unions, but then to ignore them when it comes to the reality of involving them. I hope that they will think again about that. Overall, there is no criticism of the work of the British Transport Police's Day division, so why make that dramatic change? I am afraid that I really do not have any time left, I am sorry. If it is simply because we can, then that logic does not serve the safety of those who travel on our railways very well. In fact, the Scottish Government's policy memorandum states that BTP officers in Scotland and in England have a strong track record of joint working on cross-border routes and in tackling crimes affecting the railway network on both sides of the border, so that sounds to me like a ringing endorsement. Overall, a lot of people will be confused as to why that move is even being considered. When the Smith commission devolved responsibility for the British Transport Police, it did not suggest that it would be dismantled. There were other, in my opinion, far more sensible and less costly options, and it is unacceptable that the Scottish Government did not at least consult on them. The RMT has said in a press release today that the safety and security of rail workers and passengers will be put at greater risk if MSPs do not oppose the Scottish Government's legislative plans to abolish the British Transport Police and they ask that MSPs put aside ideology and party loyalty and oppose the Scottish Government's proposals. Indeed, the STUC also said in a letter today that we call on MSPs to reject the stage 1 report and to refer the matter back to the Scottish Government to allow for consideration of a far wider range of options. It is quite clear to me that that service could be provided by the British Transport Police with the oversight of the Scottish Government and that is exactly what should happen. The majority of respondents to the bill, the police themselves, the trade unions and some of the operating companies oppose it, and I believe that the Parliament should vote against it tonight. Thank you very much, Mr Smith. I call Stuart Stevenson, and then we move to closing speeches. I am obliged, Presiding Officer. Before starting on the main part of my speech, let me just pick up a couple of things that have been said. Strange that Liam Kerr, in talking about nuclear trains, seems to have been unaware of the nuclear police role in that, rather than on the BTP. In relation to Oliver Mundell, which is a more important and substantial point, he said that there is one rail network in the UK. He is wrong. There are two. The GB network is the one that is pleased by the BTP. The Irish network in Northern Ireland is part of the police service of Northern Ireland's responsibilities to police the railways in Northern Ireland, which they do jointly in the island of Ireland with the Garda Shackona, which is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement, where the safety arrangements and achievements in Ireland appear to be quite similar to those that are in the UK. The member said that he is not taking the convention. Let's just have a reword or two about what the BTP is. Its origins are very ancient. The first railway police were formed in 1826, three years before the metropolitan police. There have been many reforms in the nearly 200 years since the first railway police were established. That is one in a long line of reforms and changes. What is the BTP about? It is about a physical presence that is seen by passengers, seen by staff in the rail network. That is probably the most important thing, but one of the key things that are members is that hardly any of the public know that they are not police Scotland. They are just police to the members of the public. I can give an example. Some years ago, when I found some money lying in the street on my way to the station, I took it to the station Waverley and I was told that I had to go to a different police station to hand it in. That is just a little example. From about 10 years ago, more than necessarily current. The BTP also, like all police, has to deal with offending. I heard from Douglas Ross that the amount of offending would overwhelm the police Scotland. The number of offences is less than— Point of order. I am sure that Mr Stevenson did not want to mislead Parliament. He said that I told Parliament that the increases would overwhelm the British Transport Police Scotland. I do not even think that that is a point of order. Just sit down just now and I will let Mr Stevenson make clear what he wants to say. I am happy to acknowledge the substantive point that he makes if that is correct, because I am sure that he would not mislead me. I will say to him that the number of offences dealt with the BTP is less than 10 per day. I am sure that that will overwhelm the resources of Police Scotland. The number of recorded crimes is 5.5 per day. That will overwhelm the systems in Police Scotland. What is the BTP there, besides dealing with offending and dealing with— You are being very impolite, minister, and Mr Ross, to the speaker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The other matter that is vital role of BTP is, of course, the strategic one related to terrorism. Indeed, a UK Parliament Committee session, DCC Handstock, said in a hierarchy of risks that the biggest threat is terrorism, the challenge of protecting the network that is so wide and open, the risk being so unpredictable, causes the greatest level of concern. Let us think about interfaces. There are 45 territorial forces in the United Kingdom. There are three national forces, the BTP Ministry of Defence nuclear. After this reform, what is the number? Exactly the same. It is just that some of one has gone to another. There are still 45 plus three. The number of interfaces is, therefore, arithmetic 990 interfaces. There will still be 990 interfaces. Does any of this matter? Well, 95 per cent of rail passenger journeys made in Scotland are wholly in Scotland. At the moment, those interfaces are with a separate police force from all the other crime that there is. With this reform, they are now interfacing with the police force that deals with crime throughout Scotland and offences. In terms of interfaces that the public deal with, we dramatically reduce the interfaces that there are. Let me say a couple of things about track access. Even if every police officer had a track access certificate, it would be unwise to rely on that. I have a motorcycle licence, but I have not been on a bike since 1969. It is legal for me to get one on to tomorrow. It is very unwise to do so because I am out of practice. Therefore, I am quite clear that police officers should only go on the line in the most extreme of circumstances, certificate or not. I hope that if a mother pushed a pram over a platform, I would shout to somebody, tell me if a train is coming and jump and rescue them. I think that police would do the same. However, yes, the core has to be in the hands of people with track certificates. That is the important thing. With 300-plus railway stations in Scotland, how many of BTPs are present? Actually, about a dozen. We know that the majority of railway stations across Scotland are covered by Police Scotland, and that will continue. Finally, to my Labour colleagues, I hear everything that you say, but you better tell the Lord Mayor of London, the Labour Lord Mayor of London, who wants to integrate the BTP into the metropolitan place. You are saying one thing is Scotland and we are hearing another thing in London. I strongly support that. Thank you very much for the six minutes. Do not bank on it because it was not a point of order in the first place, I just felt kind. I now call on Mary Fee please to close for Labour five minutes please, Ms Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing for Scottish Labour today, I will repeat the stands taken by my colleagues that we do not support the general principles of the railway policing Scotland Bill. As a member of the Justice Committee, I would like to thank the witnesses for their input and evidence and the clerks for their support during the stage 1 inquiry. However, I do not share the majority of the opinion of the committee in supporting the bill. The TSA, the RMT, ASLEF and the British Transport Police Federation all oppose the merger and for serious and justifiable reasons. Those are people who know what is best for the security and safety of the staff and passengers of our railways. Although we agreed to the devolution of the function of railway policing through the Smith commission, there was no agreement what that devolution would look like, nor does any party have a manifesto commitment to integrate de-division into Police Scotland. The Smith commission recommended that the functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter. As my colleague Neil Bibby rightly said, it would be profoundly wrong to suggest that the integration of BTP into Police Scotland is somehow a requirement or a stipulation of the Smith agreement. So questions have arisen over the motive of the SNP to go further than Smith's proposals. The Transport Salaried Strafs Association believed that, and I quote, the desire to integrate is the product first and foremost of a political agenda that overrides the implications for policing that ensures the safety and the security of rail passengers and workers as well as the infrastructure of the railway system. Indeed, those are strong words, but words from those who know better than the Transport Minister and the Justice Minister on what is best when policing our transport system. The risks of that merger have been warned off by unions representing rail and British Transport Police staff. Those identified risks cover the impact on cross-border services, a dilution of expertise and skills, retaining the skills and experienced BTP staff, the potential impact on safety and security, and the unknown costs for rail operators and Police Scotland in training. That is why the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport workers have warned, as my colleague Elaine Smith pointed out, that they have not ruled out the option of taking industrial action to retain BTP officers in the railway because we are concerned about the safety of railway staff and passengers on trains in Scotland. We need cast iron guarantees from the Government that no existing terms or conditions of BTP officers and staff will be diluted, nor will any new officer be paid less if the integration succeeds. I accept that guarantees have been given around the triple lock, but that has not satisfied the staff associations and much more needs to be done. I share the committee's apprehension with a financial memorandum that accompanies the bill. The Government and its unnecessary desire to break up BTP have not done their homework and costing. For example, on training costs, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins said that Police Scotland would provide railway policing training for all officers. That led Nigel Goddard of the BTP Federation and Chief Superintendent McBride of the BTP Superintendence branch to join the RMT and Virgin Trains in questioning the reality of the costs behind such a training scheme. The Transport Minister does not know the costs, the rail operators do not know the costs, the unions do not know the costs, even Police Scotland do not know the costs. No further forwarding costs, no support from the work force, no confidence that the Government is prepared to deal with the risks arising from the merger. There is no case for the bill and it should be scrapped. If the BTP is not broke, why fix it? Why risk making things worse? The Scottish Government should listen to the officers on the ground, the railway staff and their unions, the passengers and the rail operators. The Scottish Government should scrap the bill and that is why Scottish Labour will be voting against it today. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Gordon Lindhurst to close the Conservatives. Five minutes please. Deputy Presiding Officer, today's debate has allowed us to reflect on the evidence that was given to the Justice Committee during stage 1 consideration of the bill. I would like to echo the thanks made to those who provided evidence to that committee. Much of that evidence was opposed to the one option that was consulted on by the Scottish Government, and that despite the fact that three options were put forward by the British Transport Police Authority. The evidence against the bill is best summed up in the quote from the railway magazine that my colleague Liam Kerr referred to earlier. I know that legislative or operational changes to our railways can very often be a bone of contention between stakeholders. The UK has a proud history in rail transportation and this may sometimes lead to entrenched views clashing. The railway magazine said of opposition to the railway policing Scotland bill and I quote, It is rare to find a topic that the unions, rail industry and stakeholders all agree upon. That quote is very telling as to just how ill-thought-out this process has been. My colleague Douglas Ross, in opening this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, made clear that our parties support the Smith commission recommendations. However, devolution offers the chance to keep the single British Transport Police Force and all the experience that it provides whilst introducing a level of accountability in Scotland. My colleague Mr Ross was also correct in identifying what appears to be the real reason why the Scottish Government has opted for the most difficult of three options. It is the SNP's stubbornness and its obsession with cutting ties with anything that includes the word British. It is reflective of the SNP's general approach to ignore the undoubted benefits that being part of the United Kingdom brings and that at any cost, but that cost must not be the safety of rail passengers in Scotland. The convener, my colleague Oliver Mundell and others have pointed to a number of questions that must be answered—questions about current terms, conditions, pension rights and benefits. It is vital that Police Scotland is to retain the skills, the knowledge and the expertise that British Transport Police officers and staff have acquired. Liam Kerr referred to what the Samaritans said. Again, I quote, British Transport Police have specialist knowledge of suicide and mental health issues in rail settings that must be protected and encouraged. It is, in my view, essential that work is done to guarantee that these specialisms are not lost. Police Scotland has committed to providing railway training for all Police officers, as has been referred to. However, as has been questioned in this debate, how much will that cost? Who will pay? Perhaps more importantly, what level of expertise will such a training offer? Effectively, the SNP Government seeks to erect a border on the railways. Will British Transport Police officers heading north have to disembark from trains heading into Scotland? To be replaced by a Police Scotland officer? I recall years ago how cross-border policing in the general context—no, I won't at this stage, my time has been reduced. I recall years ago how cross-border policing in the general context caused the same difficulty and how that had to be resolved. Instead of making progress here, it seems that the SNP wishes to step yet again back into the past. As the British Transport Police Federation itself pointed out, confusion, delays and cost are just some of the effects that will be felt by passengers. What about cross-border train services carrying football supporters or other specialist operations? These are all things that the British Transport Police deal with seamlessly on a day-to-day basis. The Government is going to have to think very carefully and very hard about what is going to be done at a practical level to ensure that the current level of protection continues for all rail services if the SNP's plans are to be progressed. The Scottish Government should now step back and fully consider all three options, including the issue of greater scrutiny and accountability in the Scottish Parliament and greater alignment between the British Transport Police and Police Scotland. Accordingly, I conclude by saying that I would urge parties across the chamber to vote with the Scottish Conservatives against the general principles of this bill. I call Michael Madison to close for the Government. Cabinet Secretary, seven minutes please. I will begin by thanking the committee for the work that it has carried out in scrutinising the piece of legislation at stage 1 and those who submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence to the committee during the course of consideration of the bill at stage 1. Anyone who has an interest in the issue of policing of our railways in Scotland could be in absolutely no doubt about what the Government's position has been on how that should be delivered in the future. We set out our position regarding the policing of our railways back in 2011, we restated that in 2013 and we restated that again in 2014. That railway policing should be a devolved matter and that it should be integrated into policing in Scotland and, in particular, with a national force in the form of Police Scotland, it should be integrated into Police Scotland. That is the proposal that we put forward to the Smith commission. It is a position that was agreed in that it should become a devolved responsibility. I accept that there are differing views on what model should be taken forward, but the reality is that it was agreed that railway policing should become a devolved responsibility. In doing that, we are responsible for putting in place a model for the delivery in providing accountability and scrutiny of how that can be delivered. Those in the debate, Clare Baker, of a Mandel have accused us of railroading through the legislation that we are rushing the bill through Parliament. It is difficult to believe that we are railroading through, pardon the pun, that we are rushing through the bill through Parliament when we are a minority Government that requires the support of other parties in order to take forward the legislation. Given that we have stated that position for almost six years now, it beggars belief that people would think that this is something that we have just simply come up with, and we are now choosing to rush through Parliament. The reality is that, in making the decision that it should become a devolved responsibility, we need to create a form of accountability and scrutiny of how railway policing will be delivered in the future. A number of members have made reference to the various models that are available. Some have made reference to the fact that there are three models. In my view, there are four models. One model could be that we have the administrative devolution, which would not give us the accountability that we need about how policing will be delivered. First, we could have statutory devolution of railway policing. Again, it would not give us the accountability and scrutiny of how railway policing is delivered, because it would still be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, which is based in the United Kingdom Government. We could have integration in the model that we are proposing to take forward, or we could have a model that is a separate stand-alone police force in Scotland, in which there are railway policing and all of the structure that goes with that. There are four models. The reality is that, if we wish to deliver accountability and scrutiny, there is only one model that can deliver that effectively, and that is the integration of British transport police into Police Scotland. I will give way to Oliver Mundell. If the cabinet secretary wants accountability and scrutiny to be at the heart of this process, why not put all those options on the table to hear what the organisations and stakeholders have to say? The reality is that, unlike your party, who are not able to respond to the consultation exercise with a proposal on what the alternative model would be, we have been very clear about what that model should have been for the last six years, and that is why we are now taking it forward in this legislation. The other important issue that has not been touched on, and surprisingly by the Conservative Party this afternoon, is the UK Government's strategic defence and security review in 2015, which highlighted the need to look at how we can deliver more effective infrastructure policing and security in the UK, looking at railways, roads, seaports, airports and border policing. Looking at how we can integrate that so that it can deliver it much more effectively and deliver greater scrutiny and greater accountability, while at the same time also delivering greater efficiency. In Scotland, road, seaport, airport and border policing are all delivered by Police Scotland at the present moment. The only area that it is not responsible for is railway policing. Even the UK Government, in recognising the challenges that we face in policing major parts of our infrastructure, has highlighted the need to have greater integration and co-ordination of how they are placed. That is exactly what this piece of legislation will assist us in being able to achieve, providing that single command structure for our infrastructure policing in Scotland in a way that delivers greater security and more responsive ways in which we can respond to issues such as terrorism. Some members have raised the whole issue around the risks that are posed by terrorism as a result of no longer having a specialist railway police force. The reality is that specialist railway policing will continue to be a provision that is delivered by Police Scotland just in the way in which it delivers specialist airport security, the way in which it provides underwater policing, the way in which it provides port security and the way in which it provides border security, all of which are delivered by specialist units and will be delivered by a specialist unit within Police Scotland and providing a single command structure much more effective to be able to respond to issues such as terrorism. The reality is that, should and God forbid there ever be a significant terrorist event on our railways here in Scotland, it would be Police Scotland that would have to respond to that with a national resource in order to be able to deal with it effectively, because BTP in Scotland simply does not have the specialism or the capacity here in Scotland to be able to deal with it. In drawing my remarks to a close, I can assure members that, by integrating British Transport Police into Police Scotland, we will deliver greater accountability and greater scrutiny of how policing is delivered in a major part of our infrastructure here in Scotland. Over the coming weeks and months, as we progress this piece of legislation, I can assure members that both myself and the Minister for Transport will engage constructively with all parties who have an interest in how we can make sure that we deliver the intent of this bill effectively in order to provide proper, secure policing on our railways in Scotland. As you are aware, I submitted an amendment to today's SNP motion to integrate British Transport Police into Police Scotland, which ultimately you decided not to accept. Can I seek clarification about Scottish Parliament guidance on reason amendments at stage 1? That guidance indicates that it is possible to lodge amendments that do not agree with the general principles of a bill, but that the Presiding Officer will select them only if they are worded so that they cast no doubt on the status of the bill if the amended motion is agreed to. That guidance appears ambiguous, so I would ask what steps will be taken to ensure that ambiguity is removed in the future. Thank you very much, Mr Ross, particularly for giving me advanced notice of this point of order. This is the matter that I raised at the business bureau this morning. I am happy to share the point that I was making with all members. The member is correct that the guidance on motions indicates that it is possible to lodge reasoned amendments to stage 1 motions that seek to give reasons for not supporting a bill. However, having reflected on the matter, I have taken the view that reasoned amendments of the type that the member lodged have the potential to cast some doubt over the parmments' decisions on those matters at stage 1. I have also decided that guidance will be updated accordingly over the summer recess to make that clearer. In every event, this is guidance and decision on selection of amendments is for the Presiding Officer, but I wanted to make it clear what my decisions will be from now until the guidance is updated. I do not know if it is some consolation to the member, but I would note that the point that he made in his amendment was that he was able to make a debate. Also, admissible amendments are all printed in the business bulletin that is published daily, and it does not stop him from objectioning to the bill at stage 1 tonight. At decision time, to which we will shortly come, before we do that, I want to take the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 5507, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the business parliamentary bureau, setting out a revised business programme for Thursday. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button now. I call on Joe FitzPatrick to move motion 5507. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 5507 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. There is one question that we put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 5423, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the railway policing Scotland bill at stage 1, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 5423, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is yes, 66, no, 44. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on food banks. We will just take a few moments for our members to change seats.