 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the railway policing Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is Scottish Parliament Bill 2A, members should have the marshaled list and the supplement to the marshaled list and, of course, the groupings. I advise members that the supplement to the marshaled list stated that both amendments 8 and 9 will be called immediately after amendment 4. This is not in fact the case. Amendment 8 will be called immediately after amendment 3 and amendment 9 will be called immediately after amendment 4. Now, did everybody get that? Sorry, I'll keep you right. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. Amendment 1 is engagement with trade unions, and I call amendment 1 in the name of Neil Bibby, grouped with amendments 3, 8, 4 and 9. Neil Bibby, if you would move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I declare an interest as a member of the RMT parliamentary group. Members will be called at Scottish Labour voted against the general principles of the railway policing bill at stage 1. We have consistently opposed the integration of the British transport police into Police Scotland, and our position has not changed. The purpose of my amendments in this group is to ensure that if the bill does pass later today, there will be proper engagement and consultations with trade unions going forward. The absence of trade unions from the face of the bill, I believe, is a glaring omission. My amendments would address that. Amendment 1 would add relevant trade unions to the list of bodies involved in the membership of the railway policing management forum. The forum should not just be made up of rail operators, it should be a place where the interests of workers are represented. Amendments 3 and 4 would amend section 1 of the bill to ensure that there is engagement between the relevant trade unions and the police authority. The bill would already require the SPA to obtain the views of interested parties. Trade unions must be counted as interested parties alongside the rail operators, passengers and the other persons and bodies that are identified on the face of the bill. The transport minister has also submitted manuscript amendments in this group relating to section 1. I agree with the minister's amendments in principle, but I know that trade unions have some concerns about the way in which amendment 9 is drafted. The amendment would allow the police authority to judge what the relevant trade unions should be. We do not know the criteria on which that judgment would be made. I seek an assurance from the minister that trade unions organising in the rail sector, the TSSA, ASLEF, the RMT, along with police staff organisations, would be included in the scope of his amendment before making any decision on pressing my amendment 4. We believe that transport unions must be included in the development of any new railway police agreement in Scotland. They must be represented at the rail policing management forum, and their views must be obtained as appropriate alongside other interested persons or bodies. That is why my amendments would achieve that, and I move the amendments I now call the minister to speak to amendment 8 and other amendments in the group, minister. I am grateful to Neil Bibby for raising the issue of engagement with trade unions in railway policing matters through amendments 1, 3 and 4. Unions representing railway employees of Network Rail or train operating companies clearly have a significant interest in railway policing, and often rely on it for their own safety and security in their places of work. As I have made clear on several occasions, our key priority is to maintain and enhance the high standards of safety and security for railway users and staff in Scotland. I am supportive of the aims of those amendments of providing unions representing railway staff with additional reassurances on the face of the bill that their interests will be directly represented in mechanisms for engagement as set out in the bill. Engagement with trade unions is already covered in provisions in the bill as it stands, but I do recognise the value of making that explicit on the face of the bill as a more direct recognition of their significant interest. At the same time, however, we should equally recognise explicitly the interests of those trade unions who represent police staff, and also the representative organisations of police officers, since officers are not represented by traditional trade unions. Amendment 4 defines the relevant trade unions for the purposes of amendments 1 and 3, but it defines those unions in a way that would not cover bodies representing constables, because constables cannot be represented by trade unions or, indeed, by police staff. While I am supportive of the principle behind amendment 4, I am proposing—I have had a brief discussion with Nolbe on this—an alternative approach here, and I am bringing forward amendments 8 and 9 with that. Those would put beyond any doubt that the representative groups that the SPA must consult with include not only trade unions representing railway operators' employees, such as the ones that he has already mentioned in terms of R&T, but also representative organisations of police officers and unions such as the TSSA, who represent police staff as well. The Scottish Government supports amendments 1 and 3. I would ask Parliament to support them. I would also ask Neil Bibby not to press amendment 4, and I would be happy to give him the assurance that he has sought. As I explained, the wording is his amendment of amendment 4, which includes unions representing police staff—the TSSA, namely—and representatives of police officers and Scottish Government amendments 8 and 9. I would address that and broaden out union engagement and ensure that the intentions of amendments 1, 3 and 4 are met. I therefore ask Parliament to support amendments 8 and 9, and I would ask Neil Bibby to withdraw his amendment 4. I have a few members who wish to speak in this section. I call Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that trade unions join railway operators as members of a railway policing management forum to be established under the terms of the bill. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to ensure that unions are consulted more generally regarding the policing of railways, railway property, and that they define relevant trade unions for the purpose of the bill. My understanding is that the manuscript amendments 8 and 9 lodged by the minister, Hamsa Yousaf, seek to clarify an error in amendments 3 and 4, as Neil Bibby refers to engagement with relevant trade unions, but that would not allow for the inclusion of the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and senior police officers as their staff associations. Clearly, it is important that the views of those organisations on railway policing in Scotland are taken into account, so the Scottish Conservatives will support amendments 8 and 9. However, the unions and the railway staff associations have made important contributions to the scrutiny of the bill, and the points that they have raised have been valid and should have been taken on board by the Scottish Government. Sadly, instead, the Scottish Government has remained totally intransigent and filled and has merely brushed those concerns during the scrutiny process. In view of what any reasonable person would consider to be a totally unacceptable stance from the Scottish Government, it is not just right, but absolutely essential that extraordinary provision is included on the face of the bill, ensuring that not just railway operators but also the relevant trade unions are members of the policing management forum. I can therefore confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support amendment 1, in addition to amendment 8 and 9. I have Mike Rumbles followed by Mary Fee. As far as the British transport police, officers, staff, unions and the wider railway industry are concerned, the speed at which the Government has brought forward this bill has come as a major surprise. While discussions have taken place since the bill was published, that has not made up for the lack of prior engagement with those most directly involved and with the greatest understanding of the issues. The fact that the SNP ministers chose to consult on a single option, the dismantling of the BTP and merging it into Police Scotland, has only compounded the unease and indeed anger felt. It is undoubtedly very late in the day, but the amendments from Neil Bibby perhaps go some way to trying at least to redress the balance, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats will therefore be supporting them. In relation to the minister's amendments, I accept the rationale behind them and the fact that, while not really addressing the fundamental shortcomings of the bill, they do at least represent improvements. On that basis, we will also be supporting amendments 8 and 9, so we will support all the amendments if they are all moved. I have Mary Fee to be followed by John Finnie. I rise to speak in support of amendments 1, 3 and 4 in the name of Neil Bibby. Those amendments are important in the first instance because they would actually place trade unions on the face of the bill. In its present form, the bill makes no mention at all of the rail unions or of collective bargaining. Those amendments would require the membership of the proposed railway policing management forum to be expanded to include the rail unions. It would also add trade unions to the list of interested bodies, interested persons or bodies, to be consulted by the Scottish Police Authority. Those amendments recognise the importance of consulting trade unions on the way forward for railway policing, and, for that reason, they have my support. John Finnie, to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I declare a membership of the RIMT parliamentary group. The phrases that are mentioned explicitly in the bill have been quoted by Neil Bibby and, indeed, the minister. Neil Bibby rightly talks about safety. We will be supporting 1, 3 and 4 and listening to what Mr Bibby has to say about accepting the Government's proposals. The Railway Policing Management Forum, if the bill goes ahead, this is a very important start, and it is important that the trade unions and staff associations are involved right from the very beginning. I take a different view from Margaret Mitchell. I think that there is nothing extraordinary—that is not an extraordinary position. That should be the default position for having a positive workforce. We will be supporting those provisions and not least for the engagement on the safety issue, which is a recurring theme throughout this debate. Ben Macpherson. I rise to, in support of Neil Bibby's amendments 1 and 3 and the Government's amendments 8 and 9. Like the minister, I support in principle the proposed amendment from Neil Bibby at 4, but I think that the drafting of the Government's amendments at 8 and 9 are more inclusive and comprehensive in broadening engagement and representing officers, specifically the inclusion of the Police Federation of Scotland for Scotland and the proposed amendment 8 and the inclusion of police staff at proposed amendment 9. The explicit recognition of trade unions within the management forum and engagement with railway users and other interested persons has my support, and I encourage others also. I call Neil Bibby to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I said before, there is currently no requirement in this bill to consult trade unions or staff associations that are organising in the rail sector. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to address that. I therefore will be pressing the amendments 1 and 3 in my name. I have listened to what the ministers had to say, and I would be happy to support amendments 8 and 9 and seek to withdraw amendment 4. I would do so on the understanding that the effect of those amendments is to require the Scottish Police Authority to consult with the relevant trade unions. I hope that the chamber will support that position today. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Now move to group 2, training in relation to policing of railways and railway property. I call amendment 2, in the name of Neil Bibby, grouped with amendment 5. Neil Bibby, to move amendment 2 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 2 and speak to amendment 5. Amendments in this group concern training in relation to the policing of railways and railway property. Amendment 2 requires that any agreement reached under 85 k subsection 1 of the bill include arrangements for constables, assigned duties relating to the policing of railways or railway property, to have completed personal track safety training. The purpose is not to put constraints on constables but to ensure that the skilled railway policing specialism is protected. Amendment 5 requires that the chief constable to ensure that any constable assigned duties relating to the policing of railways or railway property have to undergo the necessary training. That should include personal track safety training. Those amendments are a refinement of similar amendments submitted to the Justice Committee at stage 2. Again, the purpose of the amendment is not to place constraints on constables or to interfere with operational matters but to guarantee that railway policing skills are protected. We cannot do that without amending the police and fire reform act. Amendment 5 would also require the Scottish Government to make regulations setting out the level of training that is required. Throughout this process, major concerns have been raised about the level of training that would be provided to police officers policing railways and the dilution of railway policing as a specialism. Yet the bill, in its present form, makes no mention of training at all. My amendments seek to address that. There is a lack of clarity about the costs and new training requirements and the numbers involved. At the moment, there are 200 transport police officers in D-Division with personal track safety certificates. There are more than 17,000 police officers in Police Scotland. Requiring them all to undergo personal track safety training would have significant costs to the implications, yet that is what Police Scotland seemed to have suggested would happen. Police Scotland gave undertakings to the Justice Committee to return at stage 2, with details of its training needs analysis and cost. We cannot consider the information that is eventually provided to be detailed. It does not properly address needs or costs. My amendments require transparency with the Government making regulations to set out the level of training that requires transparency for the public, for the police and for the rail operators who may ultimately have to meet training costs through their rail policing agreement. I move the amendments in my name. Before I move on to the speakers, people may have noted a buzzing in the background of the chamber. I am afraid that nothing can be done about that, so I can see people now noticing it that I hadn't before. Can I just ask that we persevere with it and perhaps ask speakers to speak a little louder, as some folk are finding it quite hard to hear? I call Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Stewart Stevenson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendments 2 and 5 are similar to the ones lodged by myself and Douglas Ross at stage 2. However, Neil Biddy's amendments pick up on some criticism at stage 2 and seek to clarify when the requirement for a personal track safety certificate would apply. Amendment 2 states clearly that this will be when police constables are assigned duties that relate to the policing of railways. The amendments also include trade unions among the bodies that must be consulted in relation to personal track safety training. At stage 1, the committee heard evidence from the British Transport Police Federation, which said that every officer in Police Scotland who intends to police the railways or go anywhere near the railway will have to have the personal track safety certificate. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers agreed and stated that Police Scotland would not have access to our railways if there was a derailment or a collision or any trespass on a railway. If Police Scotland officers do not have a PTS certificate, they cannot go on or near the running line. The rail operators all agreed with those statements. It would be irresponsible, therefore, if the issue of training was not adequately addressed by ensuring that the necessary provision in terms of PTS certificates is included on the face of the bill. Amendments 2 and 5 achieve that objective and, therefore, the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting them. Stuart Stevenson, followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mr Bibby's amendments are a modest improvement over the previous ones, in that they only apply to constables who assign duties that relate to the policing of railways and railway property. The previous amendment basically covered all police. However, let us look at what it means, because there are difficulties with the construction. Via the addition of section 85 M1 to the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012, we have a definition for railway property. That is a station and a train used in a network. Further, at 85 M3, Cross refers to section 83 of the Railways Act 1993, which states that a station means any land or property that consists of premises used as or for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal, including any approaches, for-court, cycle store or car park, whether or not the land or other property is or the premises are also used for other purposes. The bottom line is that the areas to which the amendment would apply, railway, a train used on a network and a station, are very extensive indeed. Therein lies the genuine difficulty. It is, of course, for police who are assigned duties. Let us consider a practical issue. With the heightened security situation that we had, we had Police Scotland armed police deployed on the concourse at Waverley station. I was not at other stations, and I dare say that I was at other stations. That falls within the definition that is caught here. Under the amendment that is proposed today, it would not be possible for those Police Scotland armed police to be deployed at Waverley and other stations unless they had a track certificate. I am absolutely 100% except if we are going on the track and we are close to operational trains that there are particular issues, but that is not what the amendment actually does. We cannot deploy constables who are deployed to an urgent shout, to station car parks, to booking offices or even to waiting rooms under the amendment without special training. Those are areas that I, with no special training, am allowed to access at any time as any other member of the public. There is also an overall point, concluding. There is also the overall point that, bluntly, training is a matter for the chief constable. He or she will know how the police network has to operate, and they must make the appropriate decisions. We shan't second guess what we need now or in future. I absolutely understand that it is concerns about safety that prompt us to be on the ball. I wonder whether training provision should be on the face of any ball, to be perfectly honest. The rail industry is rightly a very regulated industry. Mr Stevenson, on my left here, quite rightly highlights one of the difficulties. I was going to cite a similar situation in Barnas where the armed police on deployment on the course wouldn't have that. I think that we need to draw a very clear distinction between deployment to property and the very significant concerns of trackside deployment. It is a very important role for trade unions and staff associations in health and safety. My former colleagues in the Scottish Police Federation are absolutely assured that they will be very vigilant on the issue. It is a deployment issue, it is an operational issue. I absolutely support the highest standards of safety, but I do not think that we need it on the face of the ball. Presiding Officer, I do forgive me. Can I make a declaration before we move on? Excuse me, Mr Stevenson. I have a declaration of interest to make. I forgot to make. I will bring you in at the end of this section if you feel obliged. Can I have Mary Fee to be followed by Mike Rumbles? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I raised concerns earlier about the emission of trade unions from the face of the bill. I also wanted to raise concerns about the emission of training. In our stage 1 report, the Justice Committee stated very clearly that there are areas of the railways that police officers should not enter without a personal track safety certificate. It was a specific recommendation of the Justice Committee that Police Scotland should provide more information about the consequent costs of training. Police Scotland provided an update that was so generic in nature that it has not satisfied me or many others that there is sufficient clarity about the implications of the bill for officer training. Those amendments seek to provide a greater level of clarity and transparency. Crucially, it would ensure that those constables who are assigned duties to police railways and railway property are properly trained. For that reason, I will vote to support those amendments. I have Mike Rumbles, followed by Pauline McNeill. Throughout Parliament's consideration of the bill, questions have been raised about how the expertise within the British Transport Police can be maintained and safeguarded. Bold promises have been made by the Minister and Police Scotland about how the bill will help massively expand the capacity of officers with expertise in railway policing. In truth, it is hard to see how those figures stack up on this. As at stage 2, I welcome the fact that Neil Bibby is again pressing the issue. I have to say that I am not convinced by Stuart Stevenson's contribution. I think that it was very much of a red herring. Those police officers are to be assigned duties, and if they are to be assigned duties to those locations, they need to be properly trained. The amendments from Neil Bibby appear to address the concerns that were raised in relation to similar amendments lodged at stage 2. On that basis, while I will listen to what the minister has to say, the Scottish Liberal Democrats are inclined to support Mr Bibby's proposed changes in amendments 2 and 5. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Elaine Smith. I am really pressed because I wanted to clarify what Stuart Stevenson said when he was on his feet, because I am listening to the debate so far. What I understood that Stuart Stevenson is saying is that any police officer who does not have the appropriate fire arm and does not have a training certificate could not attend. I have to ask the question, what happens just now that that would suggest that there is a deficiency? I think that what members listening to this debate are concerned about, who we will be voting against, is that there is a concern that a complete integration of the system—we must make sure that the police officers who are assigned to transport duties are appropriate. That is a big concern for many members about voting for this built-in. If you are correct, Mr Stevenson, that suggests that there is a deficiency at the moment that those police officers cannot attend. Are you finished, Ms McNeill, or are you allowing an intervention? It is a very technical point. It is just the definition of what a station is. It includes areas in which Police Scotland should have free access without track certificates, but it should not go on the railway or near the active railway without it. It is a pure, definitional issue, not a policy issue. Pauline McNeill. There you have it. That might be a technical issue, but I do not really think that that is the case that firearms officers cannot attend a security breach anywhere in their railways. I think that the system is probably, to be fair, if it sounds like we have already to me. Elaine Smith. I am the convener of the RMT's parliamentary group, and I want to raise a point that is relevant to the training issue. The RMT is currently working with Network Rail and the British Transport Police on the new emergency intervention units, which will respond to incidents in order to improve safety, reduce disruptions and prevent and detect crime. The RMT is concerned regarding the status of the EIVs if the legislation is passed. I would be keen on the minister's comments on that. I would also wish to support amendments 2 and 5, because that could help to address such concerns. Quite irregular, but I am happy to let Mr Stevenson in for a very quick statement. I draw attention on my register of interest, which shows that I am the honorary president of the Scottish Association of Public Transport and the honorary vice president of Rail Future UK. Although the minister takes slightly different routes to doing so, Neil Bibby's amendments 2 and 5 both seek to apply statutory requirements to the nature and level of training that officers should have in a particular operational policing area. Similar amendments were put forward by the Conservatives at stage 2. As I explained to the Justice Committee at the time, neither the Scottish Parliament nor indeed the Scottish Government should attempt to intervene in operational policing by dictating fixed training requirements for police officers. Neil Bibby said in his remarks that it was not his intention to do so, but by moving his amendments he would in effect be doing just that. We are aware of no precedent for Parliament prescribing requirements on the chief constable in this way, and the Scottish Government cannot support either of those amendments. John Finnie made a number of very pertinent remarks on this issue just now in his contribution, but also during the stage 2 committee session. He highlighted that the work of Police Scotland covers a wide range of specialist areas of expertise, all of which come with their own distinct skills, requirements, risks and indeed specialist training. He mentioned at stage 2 firearms, dog handling, detecting explosives and vehicle examinations as just some of those areas. As he pointed out, health and safety legislation applies to all of those. We do not attempt to determine what firearms qualifications, what driving qualifications and so on and so forth police officers should have. They are operational policing matters. Once again, to borrow John Finnie's words, we should not be micromanaging the police. It is the chief constable who is responsible for operational policing. His responsibilities include ensuring that officers across Police Scotland have the specialist training that they need to carry out their duties. That is continually kept under review to meet operational requirements. Police Scotland has written three times to the Justice Committee providing details of the work that it is doing on training requirements for specialist railway policing. I refer interested members to that correspondence, which sets out how differing levels of requirement for specialist railway police training will be met. It is available on the Justice Committee's web pages. Police Scotland is currently working with the BTP on a detailed training needs analysis, and we should allow those with the expertise to continue on, of course, with that work. The Scottish Government opposes those amendments, and I would ask Neil Bibby not to press them and, if pressed, I would ask Parliament to reject them. I call Neil Bibby to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 2. The bill in its present form makes no mention of training, yet the post-integration training needs of Police Scotland and the costs associated with that have been a major concern of the British Transport Police Federation, the trade unions and members of the Justice Committee. I would like to assure members, including Stuart Stevenson and others, that I am not seeking a departure from current practice. However, without making specific provisions in the bill, the transport policing specialism could be diluted. Specialist skills could be lost. We cannot allow that to happen. There is not enough clarity in the bill about training, and there is not enough transparency in the bill about training. That is what my amendments, which are a refinement on stage 2, aim to address. As Stuart Stevenson said, my amendments are an improvement, and that is about assigned duties, and that is why I intend to press the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage that the Parliament has suspended for five minutes, third time lucky. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 2. This is a 32nd division, and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Neil Bibby is, yes, 53, no, 66, and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 1. Neil Bibby, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We have therefore agreed. I now call amendment 8 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1. Minister, to move formally. To move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 1. Neil Bibby, to move or not to move. Not moved. Thank you, Mr Bibby. It is the first time I have done this. You have to be patient with me. I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are therefore agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 2. Neil Bibby, to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There is therefore a division. And it is 30 seconds. The result of the vote on amendment 5 in the name of Neil Bibby is yes, 51, no, 66, and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 3, review. And I call amendment 6 in the name of Neil Bibby, in a group on its own. So Neil Bibby, to move and speak to amendment 6. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move and speak to amendment 6. Amendment 6 in my name creates a review period beginning on the day on which section 4 of the act comes into force and ending no later than 12 months afterwards. Section 4 relates to the functions that will no longer be exercisable in Scotland, specifically the functions of the British Transport Police Authority. This amendment will require an independent review of the act following a review period of no more than 12 months. The review body would be appointed by Parliament and should conclude its work no later than six months after the end of the review period. The Scottish Government should then issue a response no later than six months after that. The Scottish Government may then, through regulation, modify the act in line with the recommendations of that independent review. Any regulations made under this section would be subject to the affirmative procedure. In effect, after 12 months of any new railway policing arrangements being put in place, the Parliament can revisit the issue. Presiding Officer, not one of the principal stakeholders involved with the British Transport Police Authority supports the bill, the TSSA, the RMT, ASLEF, the SUC, the British Police Transport Police Federation, the Bellio ScotRail, the Virgin East Coast, the Virgin West Coast and the River Cross country to name just a few. The majority of respondents to both the Scottish Government's consultation and the Justice Committee's evidence opposed the bill. Today, many of the critical issues arising from the consultation and the committee's evidence sessions remain unresolved. Trade unions tell us that they believe that agreements on terms and conditions and pre-legislative scrutiny have been sacrificed for the sake of political expediency. The amendment is a safeguard against a rushed, reckless and irresponsible piece of legislation. The amendment guarantees that this Parliament will revisit integration of the transport police. If we pass the bill today, then I believe that we will be making a big mistake. If the Government will not listen, then they should at least agree to revisit the legislation. That is why our review is necessary, an independent review on which Parliament will have a final say, and I formally move amendment 6 in my name. The amendment seeks to strengthen the scrutiny of this bill should it be passed today at decision time. Given the lack of information provided by the Scottish Government regarding the costs of implementation or the legal structure by which BTP officers will be transferred into Police Scotland, an independent body set up to report on the operation of this act is not only an eminently sensible suggestion but a necessary one. The amendment also requires the report from the independent body that must be responded to by Scottish ministers in consultation with the Parliament. Should the Scottish Government vote against this amendment today, it will merely confirm the lens that it has been willing to go to in order to avoid thorough scrutiny of its decisions throughout this process and beyond. In the interests of accountability and transparency, this amendment should be passed, which is why it has the full support of the Scottish Conservatives. Mike Rumbles Given the seriousness of the concerns raised in relation to the bill and the likelihood that, despite those, given the slavish support that the Scottish National Party Government received from its green party MSP partners, the bill will be passed into law later today. Look, we have a minority Government, do we? I would certainly urge the Parliament—Gosh, I certainly have seemed to stare some boxes. No, I think that I should like to proceed. I would urge the Parliament to take steps to keep ministers on their toes. Well, it is very interesting, isn't it? All the negativity about this bill, SNP members can only heckle the lack of prior consultation and the determination of ministers to proceed with the disbandling of what is transferred to the police. It is difficult enough because we have a problem with the system without making it worse. Mr Rumbles. As I was saying, the lack of prior consultation and the determination of ministers to proceed with the dismantling of British transport police and merger with Scotland's centralised police force, the least that we should do is place an obligation on the Government at this stage to review the bill. That does not seem unreasonable to me, as proposed by Neil Bibby in this amendment. Of course, as the minister knows from the amendments lodged by my colleague Liam McArthur at stage 2, Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that a more fundamental safeguard is required. As we will come on to consider shortly in the context of the final amendment, we believe that the implementation of these ill-judged proposals should be delayed until some of the significant flaws can be addressed, if indeed that is possible. For now, however, we are happy to support Mr Bibby's reasonable call for review in their term set-out in amendment 6. I recognise the desire shown by amendment 6 from Neil Bibby for on-going parliamentary scrutiny of railway policing following the integration of BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland, but I do not believe that this approach is set out in this amendment to be the right one, and the Scottish Government cannot support it. There are well-developed mechanisms already in place for parliamentary scrutiny of policing and policing legislation. I am sure that Neil Bibby does not intend to cast doubt on the effectiveness of those, but let me provide a reminder of what they involve. Section 124 of the Police and Fire Reform Act already obliges the Parliament to keep that act under review, and it is that very act that the majority of the railway policing bill makes insertions into. That means that a clear mechanism for review is already very much in place via the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, under which the Parliament is obliged to review and report. It is also, of course, open to Parliament to conduct post-legislative scrutiny at any time. The Justice Committee's stage 1 report also asked the Scottish Government to provide the six-monthly progress report to Parliament on the work of the joint programme board. I confirmed in responding to that report that we will do that. That will ensure that Parliament is kept up-to-date with progress on the board's work throughout the period of integration. I am happy to give an undertaking today that the Scottish Government will continue to provide progress reports for at least the first year following integration, to provide the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny through the period that Neil Bibby's amendment refers to. I welcome Parliament's keen interest in ensuring that the newly-devolved railway policing powers are used effectively. Indeed, it is a fundamental premise of the bill that this Parliament should scrutinise how the policing of the railway is carried out in Scotland. The bill is about ensuring that railway policing is accountable to the Parliament. I was surprised at Margaret Mitchell's intervention that she thought the bill had not been scrutinised, particularly as she was the convener of the relevant committee that scrutinised the bill in relation to Mike Rumble's contributions and the Liberal Democrats who have reminded him that his party also supported the bill at stage 1. However, I do not believe that we need an independent reporting body and provision for yet more regulations when there are strong and effective scrutiny powers and processes in place already. The amendment will create duplication and potentially confusion. I ask Neil Bibby not to press the amendments at this amendment, but if it is pressed, I ask Parliament to reject it. Neil Bibby, to wind up and to press the withdrawal amendment 6. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Trade unions and staff associations have described the Scottish Government's whole approach to the bill as being ideologically driven. Despite being presented with different options for devolution by the British Transport Police Authority, they have been singularly focused on one outcome and one outcome only, breaking up the British Transport Police. The weight of evidence is against them, the workforce is against them, police officers are warning that the break-up would be unsafe, yet the Scottish Government have carried on regardless. That is why it is important that we ensure and guarantee an independent review if the bill passes today. I welcome the support of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and hope that the Greens will support that reasonable request. I move the amendment. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will therefore be a one-minute division, as we are not agreed, and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote and amendment 6, in the name of Neil Bibby, is yes, 53, no 65 and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 4, commencement, and I call amendment 7, in the name of Leanne MacArthur, in a group on its own. Mike Rumbles, please to move and speak to amendment 7. Deputy Presiding Officer, I suppose that in a sense for Parliament, this represents the last chancellun when it comes to dealing with this bill. A bill that has been rushed through with inadequate consultation and despite overwhelming opposition amongst those who responded both to the Government and to the Justice Committee's call for evidence. As my colleague Leanne MacArthur made clear at stage one, and I would say to the minister, yes, we did support it at stage one to see that we could improve the bill, but obviously that's proving impossible. We've repeatedly heard concerns about the impact this bill is likely to have on BTP officers and staff on the availability of specialist expertise around the policing of our railways and even potentially on the ability of the railway operators to provide a safe and efficient service to the travelling public. Since that debate, we now know that the inspectorate was committed to producing a piece of work on the BTP this spring. The inspectorate's phase one inspection of the efficiency, leadership and legitimacy of British transport police was to be followed in the autumn by phase two, involving a joint inspection with the inspectorate south of the border into the effectiveness of BTP. The inspectorate was to use this inspection to identify strategic issues relating to the devolution of railway policing in Scotland and the transfer of functions from BTP and the British Transport Police Authority to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Yet the phase one report has not yet been made available. Perhaps the minister can shed light on this. What he can't do, however, is to persuade me and my colleagues that this delay will do anything to allay concerns among stakeholders and the wider public about the gung-ho fashion in which the SNP Government is blundering on with this latest policing merger. However, we've also heard concerns expressed about the ability of Police Scotland to accommodate yet more structural change. Given that Audit Scotland has highlighted serious shortcomings in Police Scotland's financial management, many of the savings that were promised by ministers at the time of centralisation—a centralisation that we opposed—have not materialised and they are about to embark upon a wholesale review into policing 2026. In those circumstances, even Police Scotland's severe as critic surely would not wish this latest merger upon it. Add to that a Scottish Police Authority that can't seem to keep out of the headlines at the moment and is on a hunt for a new chair after the resignation this month of Andrew Flanagan and this looks like the wrong move at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. If the Government is intent on pressing ahead, there is a compelling case for delaying implementation of the bill's provisions. Amendment 7, in Liam McArthur's name, which I have pleasure in moving, proposes a delay of 10 years. I am grateful to Stuart Stevenson this time for his helpful suggestion at stage 2 for this amendment that should stipulate no sooner than 2027, which has been taken fully on board. I firmly believe that such a delay is in the interests of policing in Scotland, both in our railways and more widely in the interests of the travelling public and in the interests of this Parliament by allowing more time for the ground to be better prepared even if the direction of travel remains the same. Deputy Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in Liam McArthur's name. Margaret Mitchell, to be followed by Mary Evans. Amendment 7 delays the commencement of this item to 1 April 2027. That delay would allow the Scottish Government to take into account the vocal opposition to this act, which is heard both in the chamber today and from almost every single stakeholder affected by this act or bill now, as it is. From consultation through to stage 3, the Scottish Government, since in transigence and refusal to accept any measure to improve this bill, has been nothing if not consistent. A delay in the commencement of this act would allow the Scottish Government to take on board the many valid and serious criticisms of the bill. In addition to that, it provides a much-needed opportunity for the other two options that were originally set out by the British Transport Police to be considered. With the recent terrorist attacks and the UK still on a serious alert status, this is not the time to rush through potentially dangerous legislation that puts the safety of staff and passengers on our railways at risk. I therefore urge other members, rather than blindly adhering to the party whip, to join the Scottish Conservatives in supporting this amendment. Presiding Officer, I do not think that it will be any surprise that I completely disagree with the sentiments just put forward by Margaret Mitchell and previous to that by Mike Rumbles. I cannot support the amendment from Liam McArthur today, which is in effect a wrecking amendment and would see the delay of that for another decade. What would we see happen in Scotland in that interim period, especially if the Tories' plans in England go ahead? That is what we will have to bear in mind when we are looking at this as well, because let us not forget what it says in their 2017 manifesto. We will create a national infrastructure police force bringing together the civil nuclear constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure such as nuclear sites, railways and the strategic road network. Why is it one rule down there and one rule up here? You get the feeling that it is because it is the SNP that is proposing it and that is exactly why they are against it. There are a number of reasons why I am fully in support of the bill as it is proposed today. When you look at a map of the rail network in Scotland, it shows that there is a vast area that is serviced by secondary and rural lines north of Perth towards the highlands and the north of Dundee towards Aberdeen. That area is currently covered by 28 officers located at Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. That means that there are literally dozens of rural stations covered during any 24-hour period by only 28 full-time officers on a rotational shift basis. That is approximately a third of the entire rail network, which is over 2,800 kilometres long. The cabinet secretary has already informed the committee that policing of railway incidents that occur beyond the central belt is largely delivered by Police Scotland. I know that myself in my own area because of the length of time that it takes for British transport police officers to respond. By agreeing to this amendment, we would in effect use the phrase used by Mike Rumbles to limit the availability of specialist expertise until April 2027. We took written evidence from Assistant Chief Constable Higgins who saw this bill as an opportunity to weave railway legislation and other associated elements into the curriculum from probation or training that would allow every officer joining Police Scotland to operate safely in the railway environment and ensure that all officers have an understanding of the requirements of working on the railways, including legislative inputs, policing powers, safe systems of working, line disruption and track safety. It seems clear to me that having well-trained Police Scotland officers as well as a specialist railway division within Police Scotland and the benefit of working alongside those experienced British transport police officers can only lead to an improvement of service, not just for rural communities but across the whole railway network and bolster the services that we must close the sevens. Can I remind all members that there is, in fact, a debate following this stage 3 deliberation and that we are time limited for stage 3 deliberations? So when I say that you must come to a close, you really must come to a close. Claire Baker. Presiding Officer, in relation to the amendment before us, there are serious concerns about the timing of this legislation and the significant challenges that are currently facing Police Scotland and the SPA. Audit Scotland identifies a financial black hole in which Police Scotland is struggling to fill. HMICS has just recently identified a lack of leadership and poor financial management at the SPA, and we can all point to difficulties arising from the handling of the police merger. As the 2026 police strategy has just been published, our focus must be on building confidence in Police Scotland and delivering a modeler in police force. Breaking up the British Transport Police has been identified as the most expensive and high-risk option for the revolution of the functions of the British Transport Police, and I agree that this is not the right time to push forward with this merger. Presiding Officer, Liam McArthur's amendment, which was brought to the chamber by Mike Rumbles, is one that we also debated during the Justice Committee's stage 2 consideration. No one in the chamber will be surprised to hear that I strongly opposed it then, and I will do so again. The amendment would delay commencement of the provisions of the bill to no sooner than 1 April 2027. Potentially an even longer delay than his stage 2 amendment is that that would have commenced the provisions on the exact date of 1 April 2027. Mike Rumbles has explained his reasons for Liam McArthur proposing such a delay as being to give more time for the SPA, Police Scotland and others to prepare. Yet in the Justice Committee's evidence sessions, the chief executive of the SPA and the ACC, Bernie Higgins of Police Scotland, both gave their view that the target date for integration of 1 April 2019 was achievable ACC Higgins going even further and describing it as a luxury. I referred in the stage 1 debate on the bill to the work of the joint programme board, which is overseeing the overall programme of work to integrate BTP into Police Scotland for that date. Through the board, the Scottish Government is working closely with the UK Government, the SPA, the British Transport Police Authority, Police Scotland and, indeed, of course, the BTP. I gave an undertaking during the stage 1 debate that we will provide a six-monthly progress reports to Parliament on the work of the joint programme board in line with a recommendation made by the Justice Committee's stage 1 report. Those will provide regular opportunities to scrutinise progress. Our readiness is one part of the picture, but another crucial question is what would happen to railway policing in Scotland in the meantime if we decided to sit back and wait, as the amendment suggests. Marie Evans made the point very well that the Conservative manifesto for the recent UK elections, as I am sure members are now very aware, has set out an alternative path for the BTP. Marie Evans was slightly wrong in saying that it was the UK Tory manifesto—it was, in fact, in the Scottish Conservative manifesto—as well that we see that the BTP is integrated with the civil nuclear constabulary and MOD police into a new national infrastructure police force. If the Conservatives have the way, it is likely that there will no longer be a British transport police by 1 April 2027. Therefore, I believe that we should continue on the timescales that we and our partners are currently working on. In relation to the points that have been made, I would say that it would be a miss of any members to suggest that somehow integration would compromise safety. Recent attacks have shown that Police Scotland, of course, has provided the armed response in transport hubs. Therefore, I would ask Liam McArthur, or indeed Mike Rumbles, not to press this amendment, but if pressed, I ask Parliament to reject it. Can I ask Mike Rumbles, please, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 7? I would only say in winding up that in response to the minister, ACC Higgins' reference to the time frame being a generous one, only it underscores the other difficulties that ACC Higgins and his colleagues are trying to grapple with. It should not be taken as enthusiasm on his part being asked to take on this increase in workload and further structural change. I am not surprised that the minister is opposing this amendment. I am sure that it will fall with the help of his green friends and partners across at the other side of the chamber. They seem to be sporting everything that the SNP Government seems to do. I have obviously hit a chord because there seems to be dissonance on the SNP-backed benches. I move the amendment. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 7 is clearly called for a division and it will be a one-minute division. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote in amendment 7, in the name of Liam MacArthur, is yes, 53. No, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. That ends consideration of amendments on the railway policing Scotland bill. As members will be aware, at this point the proceedings, the Presiding Officer, is now required understanding orders to decide whether the motion to pass the bill will require support from a supermajority of members. That is a two-thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view, no provision of the railway policing Scotland bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I will allow a couple of minutes for members to change seating, if required, before the next item of business. Time is now tight, so you will understand that we are slightly over. The next item of business is the debate in motion, section 656, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the railway policing Scotland bill at stage 3. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I am pleased to open today's debate for stage 3 of the railway policing Scotland bill. I would like to begin by thanking all those who have contributed in different ways to parliamentary consideration of the bill. I am grateful to members of the Justice Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill and the constructive and helpful recommendations that are set out in their reports. I also thank members for their contributions during stage 1, as well as today. I am particularly grateful to all those who took the time to contribute oral and written evidence to the Justice Committee. That input is vital to effective parliamentary scrutiny and it is important that all perspectives have the opportunity to be heard. The committee's report has done an excellent job of summarising those perspectives and setting out to us how they should be taken into account. We have responded positively to many of those recommendations. The Parliament is now accountable for railway policing in Scotland. I believe that the process of parliamentary scrutiny of the bill demonstrates a clear appetite to take those responsibilities seriously on behalf of the people of Scotland. Scotland's railways are a vital component of our national infrastructure and the specialist railway policing function that BTP provides is highly valued by the Scottish Government, by the rail industry too, by railway staff and passengers. Taking forward the bill, our primary objective is to maintain and enhance the high standards of safety and security for railway users and staff in Scotland. Police Scotland has confirmed to the Justice Committee that its intention is to maintain specialist railway policing function within its broader structure. ACC Higgins of Police Scotland gave an assurance that, for any member of the BTP who transfers, Police Scotland would respect their right to police the railway environment until they retire. I thank the minister for taking intervention. During the debate on the amendments that were not answered, one of the ministers could comment on it now. What will happen to the emergency intervention units? What will be the status of those if the legislation is passed? As was mentioned, the debate continued to be an operational matter for the chief constable. It would not be for the Parliament or for the Government to intervene on that. It would be fair to say that all of us, whether it is the chief constable of Police Scotland, whether it is the Government or opposition members, for every single one of us, the safety of those travelling and working in our railways is of paramount importance. Preserving that specialist railway policing expertise is extremely important. It is something that we have said that we want to see continued post-integration. It is something that ACC Higgins says will continue post-integration. I welcome the amendment that John Finnie brought forward and was accepted at stage 2 to put that guarantee on the face of the bill. The integration of the BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland will deliver an integrated approach to transport infrastructure policing in Scotland, bringing railway policing alongside the policing of roads, seaports, airports and indeed border policing. Integration is about providing a single command structure for policing in Scotland, so there is access to wider support facilities and specialist resources. Those crucially include Police Scotland's counterterrorism capabilities. The size and nature of a single Police service in Police Scotland enables them to flex rapidly to dynamic situations. We have seen an increase in armed police response in response to recent events, for example at transport hubs. That is a response that is not provided by the BTP, but is a response provided by Police Scotland. Another key benefit that the bill provides is to directly improve the accountability of railway policing in Scotland to those who depend most on it. It establishes a mechanism for railway operators to agree with the SPA and Police Scotland on the service, performance and costs of railway policing in Scotland. As we heard earlier when considering the amendments, the bill places the SPA under an obligation to seek the views on railway policing matters of passengers, railway employees, police constables and staff and others. I am aware that members have received correspondence from the BTP Federation, expressing some doubt about the guarantees that we have set out on terms and conditions for officers and staff transfer. I repeat those assurances today so that members can be clear that there is no such doubt. I remain absolutely committed to our triple-lock guarantee to secure the jobs, the pay and pensions of railway policing officers and staff in Scotland. Just this morning, I was launching the hate charter that Edinburgh City Council has managed to bring forward alongside a number of transport providers to stamp out hatred in all its forms on our transport networks. Speaking to the BTP officers there, they told me, too, and they were almost quoting Barbatum the fact that they were receiving reassurances around the triple-lock guarantee. The devil will indeed be in the detail and the discussions of the joint programme board that it will be very, very important to take forward that guarantee and commitment that we have given. On 9 May, I gave a clear assurance 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 that transfer on a no-detriment basis takes place. On pensions, the cabinet secretary for justice is on record as saying that our starting point is that officers and staff who transfer will retain access to their current pension scheme. Passage of the bill will enable the steps to deliver those commitments to proceed, including secondary legislation in the UK Parliament. Although considerable work is on the detail that must follow our commitment to the guarantees, it is absolutely clear. I would like to address again the suggestion that some members have previously made that there are alternative ways of using the powers over railway policing that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Tories said during the stage 1 debate on the bill that their favourite alternative was to, and I quote, to enable the BTP to continue in Scotland and across the UK. Devolution offers the chance to keep the single British Transport Police Force. It was then, of course, with some surprise that when I opened the Scottish Conservative Party manifesto to the recent UK elections, I read the following, and I will again quote, we will create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the civil nuclear constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure such as nuclear sites, railways and strategic road networks. Oliver Mundell, I thank the minister for taking the intervention, but does he recognise that, although it might not be convenient to the political point that he is trying to make, that there is a big difference between consolidating specialist policing across the UK and amalgamating specialist policing into a single police force that deals with all aspects of policing? Again, the member highlights, of course, why there is one rule for Westminster and another rule for Scotland. I would say to him that one of the reasons that we are doing this is accountability, but the other reason that we are doing this is to make sure that there is integration between railway policing and other transport boards, such as sea ports and airports. If he can accept that that is the case for what he claims is happening in England and Wales, why does he not accept that that is what we are trying to do up here in Scotland, as well as to integrate it alongside with airports, sea ports and so on? Given the manifesto commitment to merge the BTP south of the border into a bigger national infrastructure force, I would expect that we could have counted on Conservative support for the bill, but, clearly, after Oliver Mundell's intervention, that probably will not be the case. Members can now be in no doubt whatsoever that a UK Conservative would do if we left the decision on railway policing in Scotland to the UK Government. Railway policing in Scotland would still be integrated, but not with policing with the rest of Scotland's transport infrastructure, which is what we want. Railway policing would be integrated, instead, bizarrely, with the strategic road network of England and Wales and the policing of nuclear and MOD sites. There is no synergy in that, no logic and no comprehension. I hope that no one in the chamber today considers that to be a valid alternative to the one that we have set out in the bill. Minister, the time has taken. I ask you to conclude a move. I then have effectively called for the abolition of the BTP in the manifesto. I urge members to support the railway policing bill today to ensure that specialised railway policing in Scotland is accountable through the chief constable of Police Scotland and the SBA to the people of Scotland. I am pleased to move the motion in my name. Thank you. I call Oliver Mundell. Please, a tight six minutes, Mr Mundell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is easy when it comes to a bill like this to get caught up in debating the detail. After all, in most cases, that would be a prudent use of our time. However, that proposition is not about the facts, the evidence or what works. We know that for certain, because if it was, that proposed integration would never be before us. Instead, this ill-judged and ill-thought-out idea is before us for one reason and one reason only. This SNP Scottish Government is constitutional in ideological obsession with control. It gets right to the heart of everything that has gone wrong on their watch. To many watching at home, it will seem absurd that we are spending our time debating the break-up of the only division of policing that is working well in Scotland at the moment. Arguably, never in the history of legislation has such anger and ill-feeling been invoked to deliver so little. Presiding Officer, under this Government, we have seen ministers prioritise change for changes' sake rather than addressing the on-going chaos at Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. At a time when accountability, scrutiny and transparency are absent in the line of duty, ministers have, with no hint of irony, had the brass neck to come to this chamber and knowingly ask us to make those problems worse. I won't take an intervention. That's your choice. Problems less we forget that have been created and which have festered on their watch. It is therefore unsurprising that I, for one, take all of their promises in relation to the integration of the British Transport Police with a pinch of salt. Ministers have throughout the process sought to plaw ahead with a single option. They have ignored the proposals for a different model that was put forward by the British Transport Police Authority and have discounted the many voices that have raised real concerns about their dangerous plan. I know that the Transport Minister has admitted—I won't take an intervention. I know that the Transport Minister has admitted in the past that he is no expert in transport matters. Perhaps that is forgivable in SNP land, but what is unacceptable in this case is to ignore the experts. I am not taking interventions, Presiding Officer, because the Scottish Government, throughout the scrutiny of this bill, has chosen to ignore the voices of the witnesses that we have heard from. There are literally countless organisations that I will come on to name who have raised concerns. What is unacceptable in this case is to ignore the experts and to dismiss those who work on the coalface, and to suggest that, after the failings in police policy that have occurred under their watch, that somehow it is still remotely credible to suggest that the Scottish Government knows better, while no one is buying it this time. Indeed, the list of those who are concerned is almost as long as the Scottish Government's list of excuses when it comes to policing matters. The BTP, the rail delivery group, the British Transport Police Superintendents Association branch, the RMT, ASLEF, the TSSA, ScotRail, Cross Country, Virgin Trains East Coast, Transpennine Express and even the Samaritans, to name but a few, have all expressed varying degrees of concern. But do not worry, folks, that the Scottish Government has everything in hand. It will all be fine until it isn't. At which point, it won't be their fault, and it will be too late to go back to how things used to be. Today, we have a chance to say no more. We have a chance to draw a line under the mistakes of the past and to learn from them. We have a chance to tell ministers to focus on getting their own house in order, to demand that they divert their efforts to studying the ship at Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, to leave our British Transport Police intact until we see the success of the 2026 vision for our police service delivered, and to see the accountability, scrutiny and transparency in action before we commit to more upheaval. Because if recent experiences anything to go by, sometimes you are better with the devil you know. The seemingly insurmountable and never-ending state of crisis, which has engulfed the single police force, tells us that integration and institutional transformation can be more expensive, less efficient and deliver a poorer service than just leaving those who are doing a good job to get on with it. To ignore the warnings of the past seems foolish, but to ignore the warnings of the present is unforgivable. This is so plainly the wrong time for integration, as well as the wrong model. That is why Scottish Conservatives remain fundamentally opposed to the integration of British Transport Police in Scotland. That legislation is not fit for purpose. We believe that, under this SNP Government, the risks of a botched job far outweigh any of the supposed benefits. What is more, we believe that the reckless way in which this SNP Government has bulldozed its preferred option through this Parliament will put public safety at risk on our railways. Much like a runaway train, we believe that the legislation needs to be halted in its tracks. Therefore, I urge members to vote the legislation down this evening and send this out-of-touch Government back to the drawing board. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking the Justice Committee for all the work that they have undertaken during the passage of the bill. Unfortunately, many concerns have been raised that are still unanswered. That has led us to the position that we find ourselves in today. We have attempted to strengthen the bill and address some of those concerns through the amendments that were brought forward by my colleague Neil Bibby this afternoon. Although we do not agree with the direction of the bill, the amendments passed are a step in the right direction. They will help to reassure workers and unions about the importance of representation within the new organisation. However, there is still a job to be done in addressing the training concerns and the concerns over potential loss of expertise. From the very first consultation exercise that we have had, industry experts resist the Government's plans to integrate British transport police into Police Scotland. Yet the Scottish Government has pushed on regardless, ignoring calls for reflection and fuller consultation, and determined to push the bill through Parliament without fully looking at all the options that are available to it. It has chosen to ignore concerns of staff and unions, and that is regrettable. There have been a number of serious concerns raised throughout the whole process. There are clear operational and serious financial questions that remain unanswered. That is an expensive plan to fix a problem that is not broken. That is why today we asked the Scottish Government to not pass this bill. We asked it to pause and use the summer recess to engage with the trade unions, with the industry at large and with the British transport police, to look at all the options that are open to achieve devolution. We know that there are at least three. Today's bill is only one of those. I want to make it clear that we are not saying that there should be no change. Scottish Labour agreed to the Smith commission report and we accept principles that were agreed to, one that stated that the functions of the British transport police should be devolved. However, we do not agree with the conclusion that the Scottish Government has come to. We believe that we could have positive change and we must be confident that the proposal is the right option. I remain unconvinced that the bill is the right option. That is a bill that will impact on cross-border rail services. That, according to the evidence heard at committee, has the potential to see a reduction in the effectiveness to tackle major UK-wide issues such as terrorism. The bill could see a loss of expertise within our force and there are, if it is, brief. John Finnie. I thank you for taking the intervention. Do you recognise that the assistant chief constable gave the example of the policing arrangements that the British transport police had through the tunnel in and into France and did not see a challenge? Clare Baker, there have been serious concerns raised by the British Transport Police Federation and other trade unions that raise concerns at committee around the effectiveness of tackling major incidents and the concerns that they have about the break-up of the British transport police. I do not think that those have been—on notwithstanding the comments that have been made by John Finnie, I do not feel that those have been adequately addressed through the process of the bill. They certainly have been addressed to satisfy the British Transport Police Federation. The bill could see a loss of expertise within the force and there are real concerns that certain integration will lead to an increased cost for rail operators and to the general public either through increased fares or reduction in quality of service as operators' funds are diverted to the increased cost of a merger. We have also heard many times that it could continue with this bill would impact on the terms and conditions of service for current BTP officers and staff and that future staff will not receive the same terms. None of those concerns have yet been fully addressed by the Government and there is no agreement in place in moving forward. The division of the British Transport Police works for us here in Scotland and we should be thanking them for their dedicated hard work, not threatening their existence. That is legislation that has been rushed. There is more than one option for the future of the British 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. There is the option for a non-statutory devolved model of governance and accountability, which could be achieved through administrative rather than legislative means. There is also the option for the statutory devolved model. We believe that all options should be properly explored, yet instead we have a Government determined to put legislation through Parliament that cannot command consensus. The rush to integrate de-division within Police Scotland with overview from the SPA, an organisation that is facing significant financial and governance difficulties, introduced the level of risk to transport policing that is not in the best interests of passengers. That is a bill that has no manifesto mandate, no public support and very little industry support. That is a bill with operational concerns and serious financial unknowns. Therefore, that is a bill that Scottish Labour cannot support this afternoon. Thank you very much, Ms Baillbaker, for keeping your time. Strict four minutes, Stuart Stevenson, followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was very disappointed to hear Oliver Mundell attack many of my constituents, who worked for the Ministry of Defence Police, looking after St Fergus oil and gas terminal. They are effective as policing across Scotland in all the forces that we have are effective. Police are part of why offending in Scotland is at a 42-year law. Let's talk about borders. Claire Baker raised the issue of cross-border. One of the things that I think that we have slightly forgotten is that the British Transport Police are not a UK-wide police force. They are only a Great Britain police force. Northern Ireland, the police force of Northern Ireland, police service in Northern Ireland, shares responsibility with the guard of Shacona for the policing of the railway system in Ireland. That involves a border between two states. The performance of policing there is no worse, broadly, similar to the performance of policing here. There are organisational models that we can choose, and there is absolutely no reason to believe when we look at that as an example that we should have any difficulty. Claire Baker again reminded us of the genesis of the discussion that we are having today from the Smith commission and the unanimity that the powers should be transferred to Scotland. If a member of the public sees someone in a police uniform, they do not ask what police service they are working for. They would not be aware of which police service they work for. They simply recognise that they are a police man or a police woman, and they will go to them for soccer, for information, for assistance, to report problems, regardless of what police force they may be with. Having a unified system that looks after Scotland has significant advantages for removing difficulties at interfaces. In terms of criminal justice, they are not huge. We know that there are approximately 10 offences a day that are dealt with by the British Transport Police in Scotland, and that is 5.5 crimes a day. I am not quite sure why the figures are slightly different. One of the points that have been made is that if we should do this, we should not do it now. I am reminded of the old saying that you repair the roof of your house when the sun is out. In other words, we would be under the most immense criticism if we were to look at reorganising the way in which we do the facet of our policing in response to a crisis. It is far better that we do it in, frankly, what has been a quite measured way that has taken place over several years. Railway policing is not a new thing. The Metropolitan Police is open for business in the 29 September 1829. The railway police started three years earlier. They have been around a very long time in Guy. Can I congratulate Neil Bibby on what I think has been a pretty positive engagement? He has done something that Opposition members do not always get to do. He has managed to amend a Government bill. I know that it took me something like four years before I succeeded in doing that, despite considerable efforts. That is a good and useful thing that he has done. We have had a great debate about safety certificates. Whenever a policeman is close to operational railway, it is important that they have the proper training. I have the complete confidence that the chief constable will make sure that such training is provided to officers who have to be that close to operational railways. I think that this is an excellent move forward and I will be very happy to support the Government come decision time tonight. Thank you. Liam Kerrful of Arona Mackay. During the stage 1 debate for the bill, Douglas Ross, then an MSP, said of those proposals, to forge ahead, regardless, ignoring the advice of so many experts and professionals would be the wrong thing to do. As we debate the third stage of this piece of legislation, it gives me no pleasure to note that his words are being ignored. Stakeholders remain overwhelmingly opposed to those proposals. The rail delivery group states that integrating the services is not in passengers' interests. The BTP warns that a deep and clear understanding of the unique requirements of the railway will be lost. The unions have expressed concerns about the safety of railway staff and passengers and the RMT has left TSA and STUC explicitly state that they oppose it. Cross-country said that plans presented a massive risk to network resilience. Just last week, we all received an open letter from the British Transport Police Federation stating that it is our opinion that the security of passengers and rail staff is being risked in pursuit of a rushed and ill-considered legislation. Virtually an entire industry saying that the proposals will lead to increased delays for passengers, safety of passengers staff compromised, loss of expertise, the dilution of the unrivalled specialism of existing railway policing in Scotland and yet, like Oliver Mundell's runaway train reference, the Government barrels on ignoring the danger signals and all desperate attempts to apply the brakes. The BTP Federation and the Commission for Parliamentary Reform have expressed grave concerns about the speed at which the legislation has progressed and their right to do so. It was introduced on 8 December and the first stage was only debated last month, but according to the BTP Federation, right from the outset, there has been no acknowledgement of our views or those of the police officers because a simple decision has been taken that there is only one option, that of full integration. There is no time, thank you. The people have had no time to fully and unreservedly grasp the consequences and challenges of this legislation. If only we could be confident that they were working off a template that works, if only there was a seamless police merger that had delivered major benefits for the public, had reduced costs, developed and integrated a cost-effective functioning IT system, increased public confidence, ensured that those who delivered those vital services had reduced stress absences and were better able to serve the public and was operating so well that it was crying out for additional major responsibilities, like the Police Scotland merger or perhaps not. 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 do not want it. When Deputy Chief Constable Hanstock has remarked that the plans have no operational or economic benefits, on a four-minute time I cannot take interventions, I'm sorry, there are important points to be made. It does not make sense to pursue the merger when the bill appears to go against public safety. Look, if we're going to rush this, this is the whole problem with this debate. I don't want discussions across the chamber summing up can deal with some of the points. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Lord Chesterfield said, advice is seldom welcome and those who need it most like it the least. S&P-back benches will care little for my advice but this is the opportunity for the Scottish Government to listen to the evidence to members across this chamber who, having considered the evidence, refused to support the misguided bill and most importantly to industry experts who have been resolute in their opposition. If there were any doubt as to whether the passing of this bill could prejudice safety, the precautionary principle mandates that members vote against it. That doubt is there, so members must decide when voting comes tonight, will they follow the experts, the evidence, the industry and vote against this bill or will they herd behind Michael Matheson and Humza Yousaf? If this passes today, then in future, if, God forbid, any of the warnings expressed during this extraordinarily truncated process turnout to be impressive, those who voted for it against the expert advice should remember that the voting record doesn't change and I know which column I want my name in. Thank you, please conclude. I call Rona Mackay to follow by Neil Bibby. The railway policing Scotland bill is an extremely important piece of legislation that, in my view, will strengthen and complement the work of Police Scotland. Neil Bibby's amendments and Liam McArthur's would have, in my view, altered and delayed this essential piece of legislation so crucial to the policing of Scotland. Recent events have demonstrated just how important it is to have a co-ordinated single force approach to public safety. Even the naysayers of a Scotland-wide police force now agree that it's working well and that eight legacy forces simply could not have achieved such an effective response to the recent heightened threat level. Of course, the irony of the situation is, as my colleague Mary Evans said, that the 2017 Scottish Tory manifesto proposes creating a national police force integrating the MOD police, BTB and the civil nuclear constabulary. The inference being that it's okay for it to happen in England but not in Scotland. There is simply no logic to that and it is rank hypocrisy. Oliver Mundell's comments were outrageous, disrespectful to Police Scotland and simply inaccurate. It was, in fact, simply SNP bad. Integrating BTB with Police Scotland will make it fully accountable to the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament entirely as it should be. At the moment, it is accountable to the British Transport Police Authority, the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State for Transport in England and Wales. That is simply undemocratic. With more than 93 million rail journeys made within Scotland each year and another 8 million cross-border rail journeys, it makes sense to upskill all police officers to ensure greater public safety and security of our country. Should the bill proceed after 2019, every police Scotland 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. The specialism of transport policing will be retained. 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 to sit alongside the specialist road policing unit already in place, so that ethos and specialism would not be enhanced, not diminished. In addition, as Mary Evans said, rural areas currently not served by BTP would benefit by having specially trained officers on hand to deal with incidents. Neil Bibby's amendment 5, wanting Scottish ministers to specify the level of personal track safety training, does he really want to hand over operational duties to politicians? Does he not trust the knowledge and expertise of the chief constable? Liam McArthur's amendment would have delayed integration until 2027. It might have been more honest for the Lib Dems just to say that they do not want integration. There are currently 285 full-time equivalent BTP officers in Scotland and more than 17,000 regular police officers, so integration can only improve the service to the rail network throughout Scotland. There is also concern over the transfer of BTP staff, their pain conditions, through the course of integration. However, in December 2016, in a letter to the BTPF, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave a triple lock guarantee to secure the jobs, pay and pensions of railway police officers and staff in Scotland. The minister has confirmed that there will be no detriment to pay, pension and no redundancies. It could not be clearer than that. Regarding the timescale of the negotiations process, contrary to the comments from the BTPF's Nigel Goodbrand, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins described it as a luxury and said that the engagement between the Scottish Government and the railway industry has been praised by both sides. You have nine seconds. Everyone agrees that British Transport Police do and have consistently done a superbly professional job of keeping the rail travelling public safe. The integration of railway processing— I am afraid, Ms Mackay, that you should look at me rather than just plaw on. I did wave my bend. Please sit down. I now call Neil Bibby to follow by Ben Macpherson. From the very outset, Scottish Labour has been clear that we support the devolution of the British Transport Police in Scotland, but we cannot support the dissolution of the British Transport Police in Scotland. The Government has chosen the wrong one. Make no mistake, this is a political choice, not to the necessity. Labour will oppose the SNP's attack on the British Transport Police, and we will oppose in the House of Commons any attempt by the Conservative Government to attack the British Transport Police. There are alternatives to the dismantling of the British Transport Police, as we know it, and its integration into Police Scotland. Alternatives that were set out by the British Transport Police Authority. Alternatives that many in the rail industry believe were never given serious consideration. I remind the chamber what the rail delivery group has said about it. The reason behind the integration is because it can be done, as opposed to there being a well-set-out argument as to why it should be done. The British Transport Police Federation has said that there has been no acknowledgement of our views or those of police officers whom we represent, because a simple decision has been taken that there is only one option, that of full integration. It is shocking that the Government is ignoring the fundamental views and concerns of our police officers. The TSSA, who represents the BTP staff, has also said that the idea of integration is first and foremost that of a political agenda that overrides the implications for policing. We have before us a bill that will break up a police service that has been subject to more HMIC reviews than any other in the country. It has consistently been found to be efficient, to be cost efficient and to carry the confidence of the travelling public. Not one of the principal stakeholders involved with the British Transport Police believes that that is necessary. Not one believes that it will make the policing of our railways any better or passengers any safer. Not the officers, not the staff, not the train operators, not the rail unions. I have to say that if the train operators and the rail unions agree, then surely we should be listening. Clare Baker said that the status quo is not an option. She is correct. The member has had since 2014, when the Smith commission in the conversations took place, to decide what their alternative would be. Can he at least give in his last minute and a half, or at least an indication of what model he proposes for British Transport Police? We have to listen to the concerns of officers, staff, train operators and rail unions. We have to go back to the drawing board and look at this again. This is a big mistake that you are making. When the justice committee took evidence at stage 1, the majority of respondents raised concerns about terms, conditions and pension rights of BTP officers and staff. The First Minister said in the chamber last week that the assurances will be given to the workforce when they have been reiterated today, yet still no agreement has been reached. I hear what the minister said, but, as recently as last Tuesday, the BTP federation wrote to MSPs to say that staff associations had yet to be included in any discussions. Scottish Government and civil servants are paying lip service to this crucial aspect of the process. That is what our police officers are saying. Despite the amendments today, which are welcome, the rail unions will still strongly oppose this bill and merger. They have warned that, because of what they call the Scottish Government's intransigence, there could be industrial action on our railways, not just action to protect jobs and conditions, but action to protect a service that makes an invaluable contribution to public safety. Nigel Goodband, chair of the British Transport Police Federation, wrote to MSPs personally warning that it would be imprudent to go ahead with the integration when a terrorist threat is severe and that transport hubs are a target. He said that the British Transport Police Federation firmly believes that the travelling public and the railway staff in Scotland will be safer if they continue to be policed by officers of the BTP in the face of such a threat. Those are grave and serious warnings. It would be unthinkable that those warnings should be ignored, and police officers should be focused on protecting the public and doing their job and not implementing a merger that nobody wants. Please stop there. I would like to use stop at that point. I'm sorry, we have very short time. Ben Macpherson followed by John Finnie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I too will be supporting the bill at stage 3 and the integration of railway policing into the overall structure of Police Scotland. I will be doing so for two main reasons, because that hasn't changed for changes sake, as has been alleged from the Opposition bencies. That is about enhancing the provision of policing on our railways and maintaining the specialism from BTP and making that part of Police Scotland's holistic service. Integrating BTP with Police Scotland is an opportunity to improve railway policing in Scotland. Integration will enhance railway policing in Scotland by allowing direct access to the specialist operational resources of Police Scotland. As Assistant Chief Constable Higgins echoed when he appeared before the committee, that 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. Assistant Chief Constable Higgins has also talked about the extra capacity that will be available, stating 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, they will be routinely deployed should integration take place. That will lead to greater effectiveness and efficiency and, in his view, a greater ability to deploy more resources to locations that currently do not receive such support. Furthermore, Chief Constable Crowther from the British Transport Police has 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 Scotland. It has been alleged by the Opposition in this debate today that the operators are in opposition to the legislation. Graham Michael John from the TransPennine Express has 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. Darren Horley from Virgin Chains says that, from a virgin train's point of view, the legislation is an opportunity. It is not correct to state that the view of operators is solely against the legislation. That is simply not true in terms of the evidence that the committee received. The bill provides an integrated approach to transport infrastructure policing, bringing railway policing alongside the policing of roads, seaports, airports and border policing, and it is right to integrate it in that way. With my time remaining, I would like to focus on the maintenance of the specialism of railway policing within the proposed legislation. It was said at committee that it was important to maintain the specialist unit and enhance that through the service that is envisaged, but also to maintain the ethos. I was assured by the cabinet secretary that the current ethos is to be recognised and maintained and taken forward in how railway policing is delivered, and, indeed, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins has also assured that there is a very strong ethos in BTP, which we would want to retain. One of Police Scotland's strengths is not necessarily our single ethos or aim of keeping people safe, but the multiple cultures that we have within the organisation. He has also stated that it is his intention to have a bespoke transport unit within Police Scotland and that that would sit alongside railway policing. There would be two separate entities under that overarching command, and that reassures me that the specialist railway policing function would be maintained within the broader Police Scotland structure. The minister also assured on issues of abstraction in our stage 1 debate, and I am grateful and reassured by that, too. On that point, I will conclude on time. I have to say that, as a former police officer and I am a long-time supporter of the BTP being integrated with the police forces and now force in Scotland, as my colleague Stuart Stevenson said, the public does not differentiate the way some of us might imagine. However, I accept that people hold very strong views in both sides of the argument, and I think that it is important. Many members who have differing views have expressed their views and have recounted to other people. I have to say that the Conservative spokesperson Oliver Mundell's speech, I thought, was shocking. I noted that he seemed fair chuffed with himself and was probably on the social media professing his good work, but I have to say that this is a debating chamber. The idea is that we debate the issues. I am very happy to concede time for Mr Mundell to stand up and apologise to the police officers that he slighted during his speech. Language is important, too. When I see phrases like dangerous, there is nothing dangerous about Police Scotland. Of course, there are challenges in any part of the public sector. There are no dangerous practices being followed there. When people talk about this legislation being bulldozed, if anyone has a complaint about the process being followed here, if it has not followed a agreed parliamentary process, I would anticipate quite rightly that there would be an objection and went to the Presiding Officer about that. That has been repeatedly said. It is unhelpful because we want to have an informed debate. There are people who have strongly opposing views to me who have contributed to that debate, but not in an offensive way. I have to say that I would ask Mr Mundell to reflect in many of his comments. When I started in the police, the ethos was guarding, watching and patrolling to protect life and property. In 1976, I was at the same college as officers from British Transport Police. We all went back to our respective forces and we did our local procedures. Me being an officer in the police, that was Edinburgh Corporation Order for many. It was the Borough Police Act for transport officers. It is very much the same legislation that they are doing now. The additional training. The differences were in the funding model, but the differences were in the accountability model. What has changed significantly in 1976 is the accountability of police in Scotland. I do not see how anyone can take offence that someone who could deny a citizen their liberty can take offence that there is parliamentary scrutiny of that in Scotland. Indeed, cabinet secretary, minister, I would like to see that extended further. As you know, I have concerns about some of the UK forces that operate and their accountability in Scotland, too. I do not think that there should be an issue about that. I accept that British Transport Police officers genuinely have a heartfelt view about the ethos that they follow. That is about safety, about keeping the system moving, and I absolutely get that. It is for that very reason that, when you introduce a cash imperative, which will be with the police in Scotland to ensure that their contracts met, no one in their right mind is going to suggest that they will alter a working model. Indeed, as I have suggested, the very fine way that British Transport Police officers and their support staff deal with the tragedies of fatalities on the line, perhaps there is something that can be learnt by Police Scotland because they can turn around things very quickly, whereas sometimes, as we know, our major trunk roads are held up for a considerable length of time. There are challenges. Of course, there are challenges with terms and conditions. My support and my party's support was absolutely conditioned on there being a no detriment to terms and conditions. I have to say that I did not think that it was a particularly helpful letter from the British Transport Police Federation last week. Never mind that it contains some inaccuracies. That is a very challenging issue with actuarial projections around the pensions and the change status. I have taken reassurance. I would encourage people to take reassurance about that, and I would encourage people to be supportive of the police officers moving forward under an integrated service. Mike Rumbles is called by Maurice Corry. Clearly, this is a bill that has not had its critics to seek. A majority of respondents to the Government's initial consultation range from sceptical to hostile. The committee's call for evidence attracted a similar response, if not more so. On listening to Ben MacPherson and John Finnie just now, one would think that the centralisation of the police service throughout Scotland over the past few years has been a marvellous success. I am very surprised and am particularly surprised with John Finnie's experience that he thinks that way. I have had him 30 seconds at a four-minute speech. I do not have time, I am afraid. While Scottish Liberal Democrats were prepared to see if those concerns could be addressed during the courses of stage 2 and 3, it has become abundantly obvious that this would not happen. Ministers and others made up their minds long ago—and John Finnie said it again—long ago that they were right and the majority of those in the sector, including British Transport Police officers, staff, railway operators, were all wrong. That is neither sensible nor healthy, though it is sadly characteristic. Of course, from the outset, ministers have argued that this bill simply implements the will of the Smith commission. Nonsense. It reflects the SNP's interpretation of Smith. Merger was only one of three options identified by the BTP working group. It was also the one with the highest degree of risk and opposed by most stakeholders. Sadly, no attempt was made by the Government or others to seek views on other options, options that would have minimised disruption to a service that, time and again, the committee heard, is operating efficiently, effectively and in a highly professional manner across the UK. That failure to consider or consult on other options undermines the minister's case. So, too, have concerns about how the specialist expertise of the British Transport Police can be maintained and developed post-merger. Concerns, too, about how railway policing agreements are likely to operate, costs assigned and potential disputes resolved, and concerns about Police Scotland's ability to take on additional functions and responsibilities while still facing very serious, on-going challenges as a result of the botched centralisation driven through by this Government. All along the way, the response from ministers to those concerns has been to minimise or reject rather than address and delay fears. In fairness, given the ill-conceived nature of those proposals, both in content and timing, it may be that ministers have made the best of a bad job. However, it remains the case that this is a bad job of their own making. In large part, that goes to the heart of the amendment that I sought to get accepted earlier this afternoon. If the flaws in the approach being taken by the Government cannot be addressed in the time available for Parliament to consider this bill, then the only responsible thing to do is to delay its implementation. The case for such a delay is strengthened, I believe, by what now appears to be delays in the work of the inspectorate in relation to the British Transport Police. If this minority Government and its green partners still choose to reject such a delay as they have, if they prefer instead to plough on with the dismantling of the British Transport Police and merge it with Police Scotland based on political ideology rather than practical insight and if they refuse to accept the seriousness giving that continue to exist within the sector and amongst the wider public, then there is only one sensible course of action for this Parliament and that is to reject the bill. That is what Scottish Liberal Democrats will do at decision time today. Thank you very much, I call Maurice Corry, to follow by Fulton MacGregor. Maurice Corry will be an ultimate speaker in the open debate and I thank both gentlemen for accepting your time cut to two minutes each just to let you get in. Mr Corry. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, my pleasure. I rise today to oppose the railway policing bill put forward by the Scottish Government. The SNP has decided to tear up this established British specialised policing unit despite the fact that the British Transport Police is an established and successful model. The Deputy Constable of the British Transport Police stated that we have not been able to identify any operational or economic benefits in merging with Police Scotland. If it aint broke, why fix it? Why did it go down the road of what the British Transport Police Authority described as the most complex option? Why did the Scottish Government decide on this course and not follow the simple option which will save time and money? That simple option is the one that we, the Scottish Conservatives, have set out. That would lead to an improved level of accountability to Parliament and I would urge all members to reject this merger. Clear operational issues will arise as first highlighted by our late colleague Alex Johnson in 2015. We face the ridiculous possibility that the BTP officers having to get off a train before Scotland to be replaced by officers from the single Scottish police force. We can also avoid the security risks that the SNP plans threaten to cause. The chief executive of the BTP authority stated that they have identified several hundred security risks that will be caused by the merger, not a very sensible thing to do in these uncertain security times. The experience of the Dutch railways also shows that the withdrawal of dedicated railway police and service and integration with the national police force can lead to a loss of specialisation and specialism, leading to less effective policing and increased danger for the commuters. In conclusion, the lack of support for the bill from the public, the police and the railway operators is clear. We in this chamber should listen to them and reject this bill. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate today and I thank you for allowing me to be able to speak at all, even though my time has cut. As a member of the justice committee, I would like to pay tribute to all my fellow committee members and those who gave evidence for scrutiny of the bill. I, like my colleagues, will be pleased to support the bill at the stage 3 amendment today. It is always worth remembering that the devolution of the BTP was agreed by all parties through the Smith commission. It has also been Scottish Government policy for some time. I believe that the integration of the British transport police into Police Scotland will provide a more integrated and effective approach to infrastructure policing in Scotland and ensure that it is accountable to the people of Scotland. Given my time has been cut, I am not going to stick to what I originally planned to say, but I would like to comment on Oliver Mundell's comments earlier. I think why most people that I have made mention of them since, including what I am going to say myself, why we have been so surprised is because Mr Mundell has, I think, through committee, always seeked to gain consensus and worked hard within committee. I think that his outburst today was rather surprising and maybe more akin to other colleagues on the committee previously. I think for him to say that the SNP is coming or carrying on with this policy based on constitutional factors is totally absurd. Indeed, I think from what we have heard today from Mary Evans and the minister in terms of conservative policy down south, I would actually say that, on the contrary, it would appear to be Mr Mundell and his party that are looking for the bill not to go ahead because of constitutional lines. I would like to say that there and I was disappointed with the contribution from Mr Mundell today, but I am sure that he will look to work with us. As I have said already, I have two minutes and I support the motion by the minister tonight. We have heard a bill today that is unnecessary and unwanted. I warned, along with colleagues on these benches, that the railway policing Scotland bill is an example of the Scottish Government attempting to fix something that is not broken. There is little support for this bill from those involved in the operating of our rail industry and the officers on the ground who protect passengers on a daily basis. Due to the limited time available to speak today, I will not be able to cover points made by colleagues Neil Bibby, Claire Baker and others across the chamber. That is possibly indicative of the rush nature of the bill, something that the British Transport Police Federation has expressed concerns about. In closing, it is worth repeating the many concerns that have been raised during the passage of the bill. Scottish Labour does not support the general principles of the bill. The integration of the British Transport Police was not a part of the Smith commission. Indeed, we agreed to the devolution of the function of railway policing through the Smith commission, yet there was no agreement what that devolution would look like, nor does any party have a manifesto commitment to integrate BTP into Police Scotland. Although we lodged amendments for the stage 3 proceedings, that was to enhance parts of the bill that unions wanted to see improved. It is crucial that the very real concerns that unions raised are included on the face of this bill. We shall still vote against the bill at decision time, regardless of what the final bill looks like, as it is not in the interests of rail passengers, rail workers, rail operators nor the skilled and experienced staff of the British Transport Police. Last week, Nigel Goodband, chair of the British Transport Police Federation, sent MSPs a stark and important letter highlighting serious concerns about the bill's process to date and its knock-on effect on rail safety. We know that the SNP does not like to listen to Opposition parties, but they should be listening to those who know more about the safety and security of rail transport. They are the transport and policing experts, not Humza Yousaf, as the minister rightly conceded last year. During the committee's evidence sessions with stakeholders, we heard that the potential of skilled and experienced BTP officers leaving the service was very real. Now we have Mr Goodband writing to MSPs telling us that some have already sought transfers and more planned to if BTP is integrated with Police Scotland. The uncertainty attributed to this bill is directly the responsibility of the Scottish Government with this unnecessary legislation. The Scottish Government is making the wrong choice by progressing this merger. The TSA, the RNT, ASLEF and the BTP Federation all oppose this, and I, as I warned at stage 1, for serious and justifiable reasons, as Clare Baker and Neil Bibby have already pointed out today. The TSA believes that the merger is being pushed by a political agenda, not an agenda for the safety and security of our rail network network. That is the last chance to stop and think about the wider range of options that were and still are available to the Government. That is why we are calling on the Scottish Government to pause their plans for Parliament and to reject this bill. Let us use the summer recess to fully consult on all options for the devolution of the functions of the BTP. Let us work with the industry, with the staff and with the public and reach a consensus on the future of railway policing. I urge members across the chamber to vote against this bill, as Scottish Labour will do at decision time tonight. I call Margaret Mitchell to close with the Conservative Party. The stage 3 debate on the railway policing Scotland bill is one that affords me no pleasure to speak in, given that it is self-evident that, at the conclusion of the debate, the SNP, with the support of the Greens, will vote the bill through. Despite the warnings from stakeholders that the merging of the BTP into Police Scotland will pose the risks to security. To quote the chairman of the British Transport Police Federation, the railway network can ill afford to have a lower standard of security and protection at a time when the threat from terrorism remains severe. Those warnings have fallen on deaf ears. Why? Well, by way of background, it's true, as Fulton MacGregor said, that this bill stems from an agreement by all parties represented on the Smith commission that the functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter. In response to this agreement, the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police Authority then set out a three options paper for their proposal to be accomplished, namely, one, administrative devolution only, two, a statutory devolved model of governance and accountability with BTPA, retaining responsibility for railway policing in Scotland, and three, full integration of BTPA into Police Scotland. The Scottish Government has only considered a full integration of BTPA into Police Scotland option. Just as it did with the ill-conceived named person legislation, it has dogmatically stuck to this option as a consequence of an SNP manifesto pledge. In doing so, it has totally ignored the evidence from stakeholders about the potentially dangerous consequences of full integration. Starting with the expertise lost with the exodus already beginning of experienced BTPA Scotland officers as a result of the complete failure of the Scottish Government to give these officers the guarantees they seek through debate and negotiation regarding jobs, pensions and pay. Both Liam Kerr and Mary Fee referred to the open letter to all Scottish Parliament members sent last week in which the BTPAF stated that officers are already seeking transfers or leaving policing altogether and that we believe that the Scottish Government and civil servants are paying lip service to this crucial aspect of the process. The letter plainly states that the BTPAF still has no confirmation even on the legal mechanisms that the Scottish Government intends to use to transfer BTPA officers into Police Scotland. Our questions have gone and answered by the Scottish Government. That is an indefensible situation to be at during stage 3 of the legislative process. Addied to those concerns are issues highlighted by rail operators that fund the BTPA in Scotland and include ScotRail, Virgin Trains and Cross Country. Those concerns include the cost of training of Police Scotland officers, which the committee recommended should not be borne by the rail operators, the loss of BTPA specialisms such as reducing cable theft and assessing bomb threats, which help to minimise the impact of incidents on a UK-wide rail network. The fact that Police Scotland officers will require personal track safety certificates, which both Douglas Ross and myself addressed at stage 2, a Neil Biddy's amendment sought to address at stage 3. To put that in perspective, the BTPA written submission stated that over a 10-year period 2.5 million unintended items were assessed by BTPA officers using carefully deployed procedures. Furthermore, a rail network is UK-wide with 8 million passengers, journeys and 2 million tonnes of freight crossing the border each year. The BTPA transport police superintendence association stated that the introduction of dual controls at the border with different bomb threat categorisation arrangements will introduce an element of risk. In conclusion, this bill is a product of the now increasingly discredited current scrutiny process, causing those who police and run the railways to conclude that the security of passengers and rail staff is being risked in pursuit of rushed and ill-considered legislation. That is why the Scottish Conservatives did not support the general principles of the bill at stage 1 and will be voting against the bill this evening. Thank you very much and I now call on Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson to conclude. Thank you, convener. I am very grateful for the contributions that we have received this afternoon for this stage 3 debate on the railway policing bill. Like some members, I want to pick up on the points that were made by Oliver Mundell in his contribution during the course of this stage 3 debate. Not only do I think that they were ill-considered, I actually think that they were shameful in the way in which you attacked Police Scotland officers in the sterling work that they do for us day in, day out, right across this country. I accept that debate is an important thing and I accept that Oliver Mundell might not agree with the approach that we are taking with railway policing here in Scotland. To try and make your case by slagging off Police Scotland officers for the work that they are doing, I think that they deserve an apology and I hope that Oliver Mundell will reflect on that after this debate. We have police officers who have just stepped down from the country going to critical that has meant that the rest days have actually been cancelled. Where they have had to make sure that we are keeping our communities safe, our major transport hubs doing that to keep people like Oliver Mundell safe, and to slag them off in carrying out that work I think is ill befitting of someone who is meant to be in the Conservatives front bench here. However, the other fact that has amazed me in the course of this debate is the sheer hypocrisy from the Conservative Party. They want to list all of what they see as the concerns about BTP in Scotland being integrated into Police Scotland, but what they do not want to recognise is that they are going to abolish British Transport Police by creating infrastructure policing and infrastructure policing force in the UK, bringing together the civil nuclear constabulary, the MOD police and BTP policing. It was not just in the UK manifesto, it was in the Scottish Conservative manifesto as well. However, we have a party who is quite happy to stand here and lecture us about the approach that we should take here in Scotland but are not prepared to stand up and defend their own positioning approach that they are taking in England and Wales. They just demonstrate the hypocrisy at the heart of the Conservative Party and the reality is that you take your orders from London, certainly not from Scotland when it comes to these issues. If the Conservative Party wants to give anybody lectures about policing, one party that I will not take a lecture from when I talk about the dangers of policing is a party that cut 20,000 police officers in England and Wales that resulted in that the military having to go on to the streets in England and Wales because it did not have enough armed police officers when we went to critical, so do not come in here and lecture us in policing given your own track record in England and Wales. I turn to the issues that have been raised by members in the course of this debate. Some of the constructive issues that have been raised in the course of this debate are the childish pointscoring that we have had from the Conservative Party in the course of this debate. Clare Baker raised the issue about the timeframe for taking forward this legislation. Let us keep in mind that the Scottish Government set its position out on the integration of VTP into Police Scotland back in 2011. We reset it again in 2013, then in 2014. That should come as no surprise in our submission to the Smith commission. We set out that integration was the approach that we would want to take, but when members raised issues about the parliamentary process and how quickly the bill has moved through Parliament, as was described surprisingly by the convener of the Justice Committee, the discredited scrutiny process, the convener of the committee that scrutinised the bill, the timeframe for dealing with that is a matter for Parliament. It is not set by us. We introduced the bill into Parliament, but it is to the parliamentary committee and the parliamentary process to consider those issues. We have not rushed anything through, and as a minority, we have had to build support for this particular bill with other parties here as well. The idea that we have railroaded it through and we are not listening to anyone, given the amendments that we have accepted from the Labour Party here today is simply not the case. I will give way to the member, of course. Neil Bibby The British Transport Police Federation 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 will fill our integration. I tell you, he is not listening to British Transport Police officers that think that this is a huge mistake and that it is going to come back and bite this Government. We have set out our position very clearly on the policy of integration of railway policing into Police Scotland, and we have offered the triple lock to staff within BTP to give them assurance about their future. One of the key issues about moving towards having railway policing integrated into Police Scotland is to create that single command structure. Members have raised issues around how we will deal with matters relating to counter-terrorism. Who provided the armed policing at our transport hubs over the past couple of weeks has been Police Scotland. Who provides the specialist counter-terrorism policing in Scotland on our railways as well is Police Scotland. Alongside the specialist road policing, alongside the specialist airport policing, armed policing, border policing, underwater policing, counter-terrorism policing, all of that is delivered in Scotland by Police Scotland. The benefits that we get from having an integrated force in Scotland is that we can make sure that we have a single command structure in dealing with these matters. If anything, recent events have demonstrated the benefits of having a single command structure to be able to respond to them much more effectively should and when they ever occur. That is one of the real key benefits that come from how we can deliver integrated policing through the integration of BTP. The other issue that the bill will deliver is a level of scrutiny and accountability over railways policing in a way that we have never had in this country. Having made the decision on a cross-party basis to devolve its responsibility, we are creating provisions that will ensure not only to trade unions and others to have a say in how railways policing will be delivered in Scotland, but this Parliament will have oversight in a way that simply has never been there, ensuring that railways policing is delivered in a way that we consider appropriate for our railways here in Scotland. This is a bill that will deliver more effective and better policing in Scotland, creating a safer Scotland in one that I would call on all the chamber to support this evening. That concludes our stage 3 debate on the railway policing Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 6278, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on behalf of the selection panel on the appointment of the Scottish Information Commissioner. I would call on Margaret Mitchell to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion and my name as a member of the cross-party selection panel, which was established under our standing orders to invite members to nominate Darren Fitz-Henry to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment as the Scottish Information Commissioner. The selection panel was chaired by the Presiding Officer and other members were Clare Adamson, David Stewart and Andy Wightman. Louise Rose, the independent assessor, oversaw the process and has provided the Parliament with a validation certificate, confirming that the process complied with good practice and that the nomination is made on merit after a fair, open and transparent process. As members will be aware, the role of the Scottish Information Commissioner is to enforce and promote Scotland's freedom of information regime, which gives people anywhere in the world access to information held by more than 10,000 public authorities in Scotland. The commissioner's role is important as it supports the openness, transparency and accountability of public bodies. Turning now to our nominee, Darren Fitz-Henry, who was the unanimous choice of the panel from a strong field of candidates called to interview. Darren is currently a senior legal officer in the REF legal branch and heads up its legal advisory team. He is an LLM graduate of the University of Glasgow and has worked as a solicitor in private practice and public service. His experience in the development, implementation and application of regulatory systems, legislation and international arrangements is extensive. His wide portfolio of legal practice has included the application of a freedom of information regime. I believe that Darren will be an enthusiastic and effective commissioner who will ensure that Scotland remains a respected world leader in openness and transparency. I am sure that the Parliament will want to wish Darren every success in his new role. I move the motion, Presiding Officer. We move now to decision time. There are two questions to be put as the result of today's business. The first question is that motion 6356, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the Railway Police in Scotland Bill at stage 3, be agreed. We will move straight to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote in motion 6356, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is yes, 68, no 53, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed and the railway policing Scotland Bill is passed. The final question is that motion 6278, in the name of Margaret Mitchell on the appointment of the Scottish Information Commissioner, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business, in the name of Gillian Martin, on not on my screen. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.