 I'm going to move straight on because time is tight. The next item of business is a debate on motion 10039, in the name of Liam Kerr, on railway policing. Can I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to pass the request to speak buttons now? Are you ready, Mr Kerr? I'm really impressed. I call on Liam Kerr to speak and move the motion. Eight minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The British Transport Police's Railways stations and trains throughout the UK. They are accountable to the BTP chief constable, the BTP authority and ultimately the UK Parliament. The BTP is funded by Network Rail, the train operating companies and freight operating companies who enter into a contract with the BTPA. The Smith's commission recommended devolving the functions of the BTP and the UK Parliament has since passed the Scotland Act, transferring legislative competence in relation to the policing of railways in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament. On June 27, 2017, the SNP Green Alliance voted through the Railway Policing Scotland Bill to transfer responsibility for railway policing in Scotland from the BTP to Police Scotland. That means that the Scottish division of the BTP will be carved out from the UK BTP and become a part of Police Scotland. The date for the merger is April 2019. We respect all of those decisions. We do, however, believe that it would be prudent to pause the integration, and here's why. It is imperative that this transfer happens smoothly and that nothing compromises the effectiveness and ability of the railway police. HMICS has stated that the scope and scale of the challenges and complexity posed by the transfer should not be underestimated. It's not surprising that DCC Livingston was clear to the Justice Committee yesterday when he said that this is not a merger of like-was-like. The BTP are different in their pensions, entitlements, employee status. Those concerns remain. HMICS have described the lack of a plan to integrate control rooms as a key risk to the merger and said that much work will need to be done around the interface of each organisation's contact, command and control systems and processes, as well as the interface between Police Scotland and Network Rail's control systems. It's true. Yesterday, DCC Livingston told the Justice Committee that ICT provision, terms and conditions, pensions and pre-existing third-party contracts will not be resolved by 1 April 2019. He could not provide detail on when the work on those would be complete. That presumably means that, in relation to those areas, post April 2019 there will be an on-going dependency on the BTP authority with only a partial integration. There are also significant personnel concerns. In a response to the justice convener's letter, the BTP Federation revealed that it has not had sight of any written proposals on pensions, pay or terms and conditions, and questioned how the SPF could represent BTP officers who are not Crown Servants. It is notable in this regard that both the SPF and the BTPF sent letters to the Justice Committee this month highlighting the lack of consultation that they say has been had with them by the Scottish Government. Uncertainty abounds on pensions. Serving BTP officers are part of a very healthy BTP fund, which sits within a further fund valued at around £24 billion. It is understood by officers that the Scottish Government plans to set up a segregated closed fund for transferring BTP officers, perhaps with retired colleagues. One estimate suggests that that has a £400,000 set-up cost, plus of course an ever-increasing administration cost to the taxpayer to say nothing of the loss of security for those transferees. Furthermore, given that the minister conceded to me in November that the BTP does not apply to this transaction, there remains ambiguity over which terms and conditions will apply. To the extent that the BTPF suggests, quote, the complexities of this have been underestimated. I know the Labour amendment, which we shall be supporting today seeks to address this point, so I will leave that for them to develop. On the BTP personnel-based outside Scotland, who supports Scottish operations, it remains unclear in the absence of QP what impact there would be on them post-merger. It is not perhaps surprising that an internal staff survey revealed only around a third of BTP officers say that they will definitely transfer, with the remainder considering leaving, retiring or moving to other BTP divisions. Yesterday, DCC Livingston agreed that some BTP officers might decide to retire before the merger to ensure that their terms and conditions were not affected. If they leave, presumably they must be backfilled from Police Scotland. Can Police Scotland really spare, say, 50 officers and get them trained up in time? What if legacy BTP officers are taken from their core rail policing duties to bolster the resilience of Police Scotland? How comfortable will the funding companies be with that or the public? Talking of the taxpayer, it is notable that the HMICS report says that the full costs associated with the transfer of railway policing in Scotland have not yet been assessed, and there is uncertainty among stakeholders as to who will pay those costs. On that final point, it would appear that the police service agreements between the train operating companies, freight operating companies and network rail that are currently in place will need to be addressed and concluded on by 18 March this year, as the BTP authority is required to provide 12 months' notice of termination. What the rail companies will need to know during the negotiations, which will need to take place with Police Scotland, is what is happening from April 2019. Who is going to be policing our railways and how? As we discovered yesterday, that is currently not clear. Then there is the other side. Police Scotland, as we looked at earlier, is in the midst of a challenging period. The chief constable is on special leave. Four other senior officers have been suspended or a range of allegations. The justice secretary is in the chamber fairly constantly defending himself. The SPA is under its third new leader in four years and in a recruitment process for five new board members. On that point, despite the fact that railway experience on that board was a key HMICS recommendation, which is not surprising given that the SPA's counterpart currently has 12 board members whose sole focus is railway policing. However, the chair of the SPA confirmed yesterday that they are not looking to recruit specialist railway experience to the board. The BTPF has made clear that it does not feel as though the current climate of policing in Scotland lends itself to integrating the BTP. We agree. That is the context in which we bring this debate. The merger might be a good idea. It might deliver the kind of seamless police service and cost savings that ministers clearly believe it will. However, it has to be done right. It is clear that the integration date is unachievable. The BTPF described the April 19 date as a cliff edge. The merger process has extremely difficult issues to address, such as pensions, terms and conditions, estates, career progression, cross-border policing difficulties, police staff and budgets. It has to be more sensible to just take a step back, pause and set a realistic timeframe, understand the significant value-add that is delivered by the BTP. Let us review how that value-add can best continue to be delivered going forward and build a detailed, full and robust plan involving a detailed cost analysis that asks whether the aims of integration can be secured through a different route with fewer risks. Many voices are offering those suggestions and I suggest that we listen to them. It is time to pause, it is time to listen and I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. I call on Hamza Yousas to speak to move amendment 1, 0039.2. Minister, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At the beginning, of course, I moved the amendment in the Government's name. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate. First, let me reflect on the fact that, of course, this Parliament, as Liam Kerr said, passed the railway policing Scotland Act in June last year. That is the basis on which the work is progressing under the oversight of the joint programme board chaired by the Scottish and UK Governments. My starting point is therefore that the will of the Parliament is that integration should happen, and Liam Kerr mentioned what he flippantly called the Scottish S&P Green Alliance. He did forget to mention that, of course, it was in his own Conservatives, UK and Scottish manifestos that the integration of British transport police in 2017. Let me first deal with the parts of the Conservative motion that referred to leadership in Police Scotland and the effectiveness of the police response to important issues such as terrorism. I am clear that the evidence does not support the concerns that have been expressed in that motion. I would go further in fact and say that the Conservative motion undermines the enormous effort that our officers put into tackling acts of terror—indeed, preventing acts of terror—as they do on the front line. It does, in fact, a disservice to them and a disservice to BTP officers to suggest that somehow they would be incapable of carrying out that function while integration takes place. In fact, last March, the Prime Minister said—I will just finish this quote and then give way—last March, the Prime Minister herself said that Police Scotland is the second-biggest force in the UK with huge capabilities and capacity and working with other police forces across the UK to help to keep us safe and I give way to Daniel Johnson. I was just wondering what his reaction would be to Nigel Goodhead, chair of the BTP Federation, who raised exactly those points in terms of his concerns and calls for suspending the integration. I simply do not agree. Police Scotland is directly connected to the UK-wide anti-terrorism network. We also made reports of armed police Scotland officers at railway stations across Scotland last May, when there was a critical state of alert. The reality is that BTP in Scotland already relies on Police Scotland for key anti-terrorism capabilities. Of course, those matters were well rehearsed during the passage of the Railway Policing Scotland Act, but even in the past few days we have seen further evidence of Police Scotland's effectiveness, bringing to justice nine members of a sophisticated, organised crime gang who were sentenced to a total of 87 years in prison. As ministers have made clear in this chamber previously, successes such as that are built on the outstanding commitment of officers and staff who provide leadership at every level. That strength and depth ensures public safety from a wide range of threats, including terrorism every day in our community cities, airports and ports right across Scotland. Police Scotland is therefore well placed to take on those additional responsibilities. Let me now turn to the progress of the integration programme, building on the update that I provided to the Justice Committee on 31 October. As members will recall, ministers have given a clear triple lock guarantee to secure the jobs, pay and pensions of railway policing officers and staff in Scotland. Secondary legislation is now being drafted on the basis that officers and staff will retain the same terms and conditions of services, the same pension and the same employment status. In short, planning is proceeding on the basis of transferring officers and staff, as is in relation to terms and conditions. I thank the minister for an update on that very issue of terms and conditions. If he is so confident that the matter has been addressed, why did DCC Livingston and Justice Committee say that the April 2019 deadline for this is still proving to be challenging? He specifically mentioned terms and conditions, so why is the minister confident that the police themselves are not? I read in detail and looked again at what DCC Livingston said. As Liam Kerr said in his opening remarks, he was talking about ICT functions primarily. When it came to pensions, he was talking about harmonising them, but he said that he was confident about operational integration by the April 19 date. Liam Kerr mentioned the BTP federation and our engagement with them. The BTPF recently attended four days of detailed discussions on terms and conditions, with three additional days scheduled in February. A further meeting with the federation and the TSA planned for 12 February. That detailed work is allowing us to map current terms of condition and ensure that they are transferred intact. The joint programme board recently published an extensive Q&A to help officers and staff to understand what the transfer means for them, but we recognise that there are still areas where they are looking for greater detail. If you just let me make progress because I know my time is short, the Scottish Government is committed to continuing to engage with BTP officers and staff representatives to further develop materials that explain that transfer. That will be carried forward alongside face-to-face engagement with officers and staff, led by Police Scotland and BTP, with a number of sessions having already taken place. However, I know that the Green amendment was not selected, but it was. In fact, the Government would have supported it, because it is fair to say that we understand that, despite all that work and engagement, it is clear to us that there is, and I acknowledge, that there is some level of discontent among some stakeholders and some officers. We will redouble our efforts with stakeholders, and we will honour our commitment to no detriment. No, you must conclude now. Thank you. I know that you can intervention. I give you extra time. Can I call on Colin Smyth to speak to on move amendment 10039.3? Five minutes, please. When the railway policing bill came before Parliament, Labour shared the universal stakeholder concerns about the bill from the trade unions, RMT, As Left and the TSSA, the British Transport Police and their Federation, the rail delivery group, ScotRail, Cross Country and HMIC, whose report on the merger concluded that, and I quote, no detailed and authoritative business case for the transfer to Police Scotland was developed. Those concerns were universally ignored by the Scottish Government, a Government obsessed by putting ideology ahead of addressing the concerns about integration. The failure to even consult on the three options for railway policers in Scotland, presented by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, highlighted arrogance at the heart of the Government when it comes to integration. A Government that has not only failed to address genuine concerns, but failed to engage in a meaningful way with the stakeholders who raised those concerns. During one justice committee session, the British Transport Police Federation stated that, again, we have felt that our concerns and the risks associated with integration have simply been ignored. One of the key concerns that were raised with the Justice Committee throughout the process of the bill was the threat posed to Transport Police's capacity and expertise. The British Transport Police's submission to the committee posed the question how in practice will the plans to merge the two forces in Scotland embed and sustain BTPs, specialist transport, police and ethos? Michael Hogg from the RMT union stated that, and again, I quote, from a staff and trade union perspective, we can see the BTPs' expertise and knowledge being lost if the merger of it and Police Scotland goes ahead. Protecting the expertise and focus of the transport police is therefore vital to maintain the current high standard of service, and key to that is the need to provide firm proposals on the future of staff pay and conditions. Will the Government have confirmed that jobs pay and pensions will be protected during the process of integration, too many questions remain unanswered about the long-term implications of integration for staff? The consequences of that uncertainty are there for all to see. The British Transport Police's staff survey found that two thirds of officers were unsure whether they would even transfer to Police Scotland following the proposed integration. An HMIC reported at the end of last year that, as a result of the uncertainty about their future, officers described morale as being low. We urgently need firm proposals from the Government to protect staff pay and conditions in the long term. Moving forward with the integration, before those details have been published and agreed, we would be utterly irresponsible. However, in the time since the bill passed through Parliament, it is not just concerns around staff terms and conditions that remain unresolved and that have been compounded. As someone who represents the south of Scotland, we are all eight million of the cross-border services passed through on the west and east coast main lines. In this valley line every year, it is a huge concern that it is still unclear exactly what arrangements will be put in place to properly police cross-border services. This week, Police Scotland Deputy Chief Constable Ian Livingstone told the Justice Committee that it has become absolutely clear that merger issues such as integrating two IT systems would not be tackled by the Government's deadline for integration April next year. All that comes before you even take into account that Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are currently in a state of uncertainty at best and at worst a state of chaos. Unable to get their own act together, never mind take on additional responsibilities. To date, the Scottish Government's approach to the integration of transport policing has been defined by their uncompromising and reckless pursuit of their own agenda and burying their head in the sand. Parliament today has an opportunity— I will give way and I think that I will get my last minute, but I will give way if— Minister? I just wanted to ask you—he talks about uncertainty and understanding his opposition, but can he say after all those years what Labour's position would have been to do it done with the BTP post the Smith commission? Mr Smith? One of the cases that was put forward was for a separate Scotland BTP, if one of the cases that was put forward was for a separate Scotland BTP. However, the point was that three proposals were put forward. We would have consulted on all those three proposals. Maybe the minister would like to get to his feet and explain why he refused to consult on the three proposals that were put forward and simply for entirely ideological reasons pursued one single obsessive agenda. Now, Parliament now has an opportunity to tell the Government at the very least to pause and for once start to listen, to take stock, to work constructively with all stakeholders in Parliament to ensure that the changes that the railway police and bill will bring, unwanted as they may be, should be brought in in a way that at least minimises the risk to public safety and properly protects staff. Last year, the chairman of the British Transport Federation, Nigel Goodman, wrote to the transport minister asking him not to put passengers and staff at risk. In his letter, he said, given the recent terrorist attack in Manchester in London and the on-going and significant threat from terrorism, I am writing to you as a matter of urgency to implore you to suspend the railway police and Scotland bill. The Government needs to listen to those warnings instead of simply brushing those concerns aside, as the minister did in his comments earlier. They need to call a pause in the integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland and, crucially, the Government needs to provide firm proposals on the long-term pay and conditions so that we can address the uncertainty that staff currently face and prevent a workforce crisis that will happen if they do not listen. The best way to do that, Presiding Officer, is to support Labour's amendment today and to a perfectly reasonable motion. I therefore move that amendment in the name of Daniel Johnstone and myself. Before I move to open date, I apologise to the minister. You did not overrun your time. I know that I did not have my glasses on. They are on now. It is on the record. You were not minister at fault. I now move to the open debate. I call Margaret Mitchell, 12, by Rona Mackay. Four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The security of the travelling public relies on the effective policing of our railways. Following the recommendation of the Smith commission, the Scotland Act 2016 provided for the functions of the British Transport Police to be devolved. The British Transport Police Authority submitted three possible options to achieve that recommendation. The Scottish Government ignored two of those options and only consulted on the full integration of BTP into Police Scotland. Thereafter, the railway policing Scotland bill 2016 was referred to the Justice Committee as the lead committee for the bill. Members of the committee were divided on supporting the general principles, which were approved by majority at stage 1. At stage 3, SNP MSPs, with the support of Green MSPs, voted through the bill, despite widespread criticism from stakeholders who included the British Transport Police Federation, the British Transport Police Superintendent's Association branch, the rail unions, including RMT, Asloff, TSA, the railway delivery group, which represents Network Rail, and the train operators, including ScotRail, Cross Country, Virgin Trains, East Coast and Trans-Pennine Express, and even Samaritan Scotland, which has first-hand knowledge of suicide and mental health issues in rail settings. Those stakeholders warned of the dangerous consequences of full integration, starting with the loss of expertise, resulting from the exodus of BTP Scotland officers as a result of the Scottish Government's failure to deliver on the guarantees sought by those officers regarding jobs, pay and pensions. Meanwhile, the rail operators who fund the BTP in Scotland, such as ScotRail, Virgin Trains and Cross Country, expressed concern about the loss of specialisms, such as reducing cable theft and assessing bond threats. Those skills not only keep our railways safe but help to minimise the impact of incidents on a UK basis. Perhaps most tellingly still, in an independent watchdog report on BTP in Scotland and the proposed transfer, HMICS stated that the Scottish Government has failed to set out a single, detailed and authoritative business case. There was a total lack of thought regarding the fact that the proposals would lead to a dual-command structure for railway policing across Great Britain and that the specialist and distinct nature of BTP's work has been underestimated. More specifically, the report highlights the interface between the different contact, command and control systems of the relevant organisations as a key risk of integration, which is critical to ensure the safety of officers and the travelling public. Presiding Officer, I am in my last minute. The BTP Scotland division has an exemplary record in ensuring that our railways are secure. Given all of the above, and at a time of heightened terrorism awareness, it is absolutely folly to proceed with its integration. This is especially the case, as only yesterday, DCC Livingstone confirmed that IT issues, as well as pensions in terms of conditions, would not be resolved by integration day April 2019, and that he shares the concerns about how officers are going to be integrated. I therefore urge Parliament to support the motion calling for the cabinet secretary, at the very least, to pause and reconsider those ill-conceived plans. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Neil Bibby. This is a debate that should, in my view, not be happening, because the premise of the Conservative motion on the railway policing Scotland bill, which was passed last summer by this Parliament, simply is not valid. We seem to have been hearing a rerun of the merits of the bill from opposition so far, and that does not reflect the motion. Liam Kerr's motion appears to be framing the motion to pause the merger of B to be around the leadership challenges facing Police Scotland, which is, as Liam Kerr, myself and the rest of the Justice Committee heard yesterday, from acting chief constable Liam Livingstone, utter nonsense. ACC Livingstone emphatically stated that policing on the ground is not affected in any way by the internal wranglings at the top of the tree. Indeed, he forcefully outlined the strength of policing in Scotland today, in the main, down to having the effective and effective single force, and he reiterated that crime is at its lowest level since 1974. Liam Kerr. Thank you for taking the intervention. Just to get it back on point, is the member aware of whether the Government has made any contingency plans should two thirds of Scottish BTP officers decide not to transfer to Police Scotland? Rona Mackay. The motion goes on to highlight railway policing as being of critical importance to public safety, particularly in responses to terrorism, which is, of course, correct. The fact is that merging BTPs with Police Scotland will, as we have heard in evidence before the bill was passed, strengthen the force's ability to respond quickly to terrorist threats across border. That has been happening, and it will continue to happen after the merger. 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. Liam Kerr says that ACC Livingston is worried about paying pensions of the officer's terms and conditions being transferred. Of course, that is understandable, but what Mr Kerr did not say in his speech was that ACC Livingston stated categorically that he personally has nothing to do with that side of the merger. His remit was purely on the Police operational side, but of course his officers' paying conditions were of concern to him. Presiding Officer, it has been said many times during the passing of this bill that the Scottish Government has given a triple lock guarantee to protect the jobs, pay and pensions of British Transport Police officers and staff in Scotland. We are working hard with officers and their representatives to ensure that the terms of the transfer are fully understood. A further meeting with the BTP Federation and Transport Salaries Staff Association is scheduled to take place next month. The BTP Federation has been briefed that the joint programme board is progressing draft secondary legislation to transfer officers and staff in Scotland to Police Scotland, and it will be done with no detriment to the pensions or serving of serving, deferred or retired BTP officers and staff. There are currently 285 full-time equivalent BTP officers in Scotland and more than 17,000 regular police officers. In my view, integration can only improve the service to the rail network throughout Scotland. The specialism of transport policing, mentioned by Margaret Mitchell, has been recognised emphatically. Police Scotland has confirmed that a bespoke railway policing unit will be established for railway policing in Scotland. What more proof do the Conservatives need that this merger has been planned meticulously to ensure a smooth transition in 2019? In addition, integrating BTP with Police Scotland will make it fully accountable to the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament entirely as it should be. In conclusion, I repeat that it is simply preposterous to pause this process while negotiations are on-going. I urge the Conservatives to stop trying to derail this merger, which will make Scotland a safer and more secure place to live and travel. I call Neil Bibby to be followed by John Finnie. My position and the position of Scottish Labour on the railway policing act and the Scottish Government's intention regarding the British Transport Police has not changed since we last debated the issue. I do not support the merger. There is, as I say, no reason why the devolution of the British Transport Police in Scotland should mean the dissolution of the British Transport Police in Scotland. I hope that we can all agree on across the chamber as that throughout this process in the Parliament's on-going scrutiny of the merger. Our absolute priority must always be the safety of the travelling public. My views about the merger have always been informed by the views of the British Transport Police officer and staff unions. They have been consistent in arguing that integration could, on a practical level, have an impact on their members and their capacity to keep people safe. They have described the merger as imprudent, and they have warned that it could result in an inferior service. They remain deeply concerned about what the merger means for officers and staff with the dilution of specialist railway policing skills, and they also have concerns about the on-going uncertainty over terms and conditions. There were always questions about the path of full integration by 2019, chosen by the Scottish Government. I do not think that any of us could say that this merger was ever going to be easy or straightforward. That was backed up by evidence to the Justice Committee yesterday, confirming issues over the integration of IT services, pensions, terms and conditions being unresolved. Indeed, as I have already mentioned, acting chief constable Ian Livingston stated that those issues would not be resolved for the 1 April 2019, the date of the proposed merger with Police Scotland. As has also been mentioned, Nigel Goodband, chair of the British Transport Police Federation, representing front-line officers, issued a statement responding to yesterday's committee session in which he said, "...now it's clear that full integration cannot be achieved by April 2019. It is our suggestion that the process is suspended until such time as there is a full and robust plan, detailed analysis of cost and a full and complete understanding of the terms and conditions of our members." I think that we should all, every member of this chamber, give the fullest consideration to what is a serious and genuine request by the BTP Federation. On behalf of front-line officers, we trust with our safety, we can week out. I would also like to remind the chamber that these latest calls for a suspension in the process follow an 11,000 strong petition collected by the TSSA trade union calling for a halt to the merger. It is of utmost importance that the workforce and also passengers have confidence in the new railway policing arrangements, whatever they might be. I believe that putting the process on pause would send an important signal that the concerns of officers and staff are not being ignored and that they are being listened to and that there will be no rush to a merger. I also believe that it would send an important signal that lessons have been learned from the creation of Police Scotland. At stage 3 of the railway policing bill, the Government agreed and the Parliament accepted a number of my amendments that set out mechanisms for engagement with trade unions on the face of the bill. That was just not a matter of process, it was an important matter of principle. We agreed that those who represent the workforce should have a voice in this merger. Given the steps that the Parliament and the Scottish Government were prepared to take last year to ensure that the workforce had a voice, it seems only right that we should demonstrate today that the concerns of the workforce have been heard and that they will be listened to. I also believe that it is time to listen regarding a halt to this merger. The legislation was passed by the Parliament and it has to be respected. Throughout the passage of the bill, as many speakers have said, there were various concerns raised. I accept the roles for whom the integration of the two services will never be acceptable. There were views held for various reasons. I take no issue with the Conservative Party bringing that forward. I think that it is entirely appropriate that we discuss this and I will come on to why it is important. I get the British Transport Police officers of pride in their existing arrangements and the Federation as well. That is the force that they joined. As someone who served in two forces, I understand that. We know that same mindset with regard to regimental amalgamations and the like. I absolutely get that. Once again, language is important. Talking about safety, I put that at the forefront of everything. We will make decisions. There are six of us here in the basis of what we think is right. That will mean some very odd shades of alliances and occasions, but that is what we did. It is not very often that I would find myself on the opposite side of Police Federation, Superintendent's Association, RMT. The history of policing is that, from the Zetland constabulary in the north of Dumfries Borough in the south, there have been integrations. I have two neighbours. I think that I mentioned here recently who are members of Inverness Borough Police now. You will not persuade them ever that there is ever going to be a police service to march that. It is important that we move on. It is important that we do not forget as well. Assurances have been sought and given, so, although we certainly won't be supporting the Conservative motion, we certainly won't be supporting the lending support to the Scottish Government motion, and I'm going to lay out why. Assurances were given on the following. The Conservatives raised about terms and conditions were clearly genuine and remain, and that's important because, as has been said, it's to ensure that integration is effective. We've heard the assurance, and I am reassured what I heard from the minister here, and indeed he's comments about our amendment, which is appreciated. Still not supporting your amendment, though. This was a complex issue, but, as someone said recently, it's as complicated as we want to make it. Those are matters of the pension, I think, as it is a complicated matter, but terms and conditions. I want to touch on some of the operational things. I appreciate not everyone sat through the extensive evidence that has taken this, but it's entirely wrong to say that the issue of control rooms, for instance, suddenly appears at this point. That issue was addressed. There is no issue whatsoever about the collaborative working that takes place between the Scottish forces, forces south of the border and the VTP. Of course, in Scotland, you're going to have a situation where there is one control room rather than the situation of dealing with 43 in the rest of the G. No, I won't. It's also important not to make issues around the cross-border. The cross-border arrangements were dealt with historically. They were reinforced again in the 2012 act. They were covered extensively in this. It's a regular thing that we heard of officers escorting Newcastle United fans. No, I won't take an intervention. Newcastle United fans, in the short period that we had, if it was a longer debate, most certainly I would. Those issues have been addressed. I think that my acting chief constable Livingston's words have been much quoted here, and I would say misrepresented. The IT issue, if we can resolve the existing IT issues, never mind any others within that time frame, that might be interesting. Moving forward, I see that the Scottish Governments should be viewing themselves in this process as hosts, and as hosts, they should be welcoming. The way they do that is to smooth the passage and sort out the terms and conditions. As I say, I welcome what the minister said in terms of jobs, pay and pensions. However, I have a concern that there is a measure of complacency, and whether that is around the timetabling of this and the time that we feel is left, there is a lot to be sorted out in a short time. We need to get it sorted out soon. Liam McArthur, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Welcome, John Finnie's acknowledgement of the legitimacy of this debate. Some have called that into question, suggesting that it goes against the will of Parliament. I think that the concerns that have been raised with us as a Parliament and individually about the impact that this bill is likely to have, the timescale of it, it would be remiss of us not to be holding Government to account. I welcome the fact that we are having that debate. Since we have passed that legislation, since then the independent policing regulator has criticised the proposals for lacking, as others have said, a detailed and authoritative business plan. Derek Penman's draft report even referred to the mergers being politically motivated. We have seen many BTP officers and staff expressing serious doubts about whether they see a future for themselves in the newly merged operation. None of that is new. Most respondents to the Government's initial consultation range from sceptical to hostile. The response to the committee's call for evidence was scarcely more supportive of the plans. Ministers, of course, cling to the delusion that the merger merely implements the will of the Smith commission in truth. It reflects only the SNP's interpretation of Smith. Merger was just one of three options identified, and it was also the one with the highest degree of risk and opposed by most stakeholders. Ministers made no attempt, as Colin Smyth said, to seek views on the other options, options that would have minimised disruption to a service that we know is operating efficiently, effectively and with a high degree of professionalism across the United Kingdom. Having made their minds up, Ministers carried out no proper assessment of the risks or costs of abolishing BTP. The failure to do that basic work, identifying and planning for both the benefits and the disbenefits, the risks and the costs associated with the merger, leaves the joint board with the task of implementing the policy at any cost and irrespective of the problems that they identify. That is just inexcusable. Little wonder therefore that current and former BTP officers and staff have been expressing concerns in the way that they have. Should significant numbers choose not to transfer or move on shortly after the merger, the loss of expertise and specialist policing knowledge would be highly damaging. Yet still, the minister cannot provide the answers to the legitimate questions that officers and staff are asking. At the Justice Committee yesterday, DCC Livingston did make a valiant attempt to provide the reassurances that he could, but he acknowledged that ministers themselves need to come up with many of the answers. He also acknowledged to that the merger could yet be postponed if those issues are not ironed out ahead of the deadline next year. I suspect that, with everything else that he has on his plate at the moment, this latest SNP centralisation is the last thing that DCC Livingston and his colleagues at Police Scotland need right now. With no clarity over the risks or the business case, no clarity over costs or who is expected to pay, no clarity over future working arrangements and retention of specialist knowledge, it seems that the only thing over which there is clarity at the moment is the Government's pickheaded determination to ignore all of those concerns and carry on regardless. For years, SNP ministers have had an agenda to disband the British Transport Police in Scotland. For months, they have tried to come up with a justification and a way of making it work. To date, they have failed, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is not too late for them to come to their senses and for the sake of policing and in the public interest. I urge the Government to pause this ill-thought-through merger and I urge them to support the motion in Liam Kerr's name. I call Fulton McGregor to be followed by Oliver Mundell. The next time I hear a Tory tell me, we shouldn't be having a referendum that was clearly outlined in her manifesto because we've already had one. I'll be talking about this motion. This Parliament decided less than a year ago to go ahead with these plans and work as well under way to making it so. This was after the bill went through the proper parliamentary process and I should know, as a member of the Justice Committee, that it is scrutinised at all stages. I take issue with the wording of Liam Kerr's motion. He is suggesting that DCC Livingston and his team of senior officers around him are incapable of carrying out their duties. That is unacceptable. However, let's also be clear here. Given that Parliament has passed this bill, whether the Tories like it or not, is Liam Kerr suggesting that this Parliament intervenes in a police operational matter? The two Tory motions today are counter to each other in lack consistency. Thankfully, Liam Kerr's earlier assertion that his party will be at the next Scottish Government is likely to remain a dream. No, I won't take an intervention because of the time limits. I'm not sure what committee some of the members are referring to. Yesterday, I asked DC Livingston a very direct question at committee if he felt a pause would be prudent. He made it clear that if at any time he felt that a pause or delay was necessary, he would highlight it. However, at this time, however, plans are going as expected and there should be no issue with the integration going ahead on 1 April next year. DCC Livingston, as part of the wider debate, also highlighted that policing is not in crisis, and I think that it's important that we continue to praise our officers and have faith in them, particularly when we're talking about these operational matters. When I spoke in stage 3 debate last year, I highlighted various reasons why I supported this integration, and I haven't changed my position on that. Instead, if a limited number of officers being trained in railway policing, all police officers in Scotland will be trained in railway policing by increasing coverage across the whole of Scotland. Just like other areas of policing, such as the roads and the CID, there will be officers who are trained at an advanced level, and I don't hear the Tories calling for a Scottish roads police force to be established. When you consider the numbers, 285 BTP police compared with 17,000 police Scotland officers, I can't even believe that we're having a discussion. Let's ensure that all our police officers are trained and able to provide police anywhere in Scotland. Of course, there are on-going issues of governance with the police Scotland, but the suggestion from lean care that everyday policing should stop as a result is ridiculous. There is a reason that Chief Constable has a deputy, just like in every other organisation. If Ruth Davidson was to take a leave of absence, would the conservative stop until she came back? It will be interesting to see Labour support their Tory friends, yet again kicking the police. Just like they do with our nurses and teachers, they seem to be supporting each other more and more often. I wonder if they can see that. It's time that both parties stop playing politics and value their public services. Having heard DC Livingston yesterday, I have every faith that he'll be the first to say if plans to integrate by April are not realistic and we need a pause, and I know that the Scottish Government will continue to monitor the situation on that basis. It's DC Livingston that will listen to not a conservative motion about whether a pause is needed. Oliver Mundell, followed by James Dornan. Perhaps I'm a little bit over-eager to start speaking in this debate, but I have to be honest enough to admit that I agree with Rona Mackay on this occasion that this debate shouldn't be taking place. We should never have got to this point in the first place. Having sat on the Justice Committee at the time, like Fulton MacGregor, and listened to the evidence that came in from experts from practically every stakeholder organisation, it's been clear right from the start that this is not only the wrong plan, it's the wrong time and that the consultation held by the Scottish Government right back at the start was fundamentally flawed. We will create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the civil nuclear constabulary, the Ministry of Defence and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure such as nuclear sites, railways and strategic road transport, UK, Conservative and Scottish Conservatives manifesto 2017. If it wasn't the right plan for us, why on earth was it the right plan for them? Oliver Mundell. It's almost as if it's exactly the same intervention as I took from his colleagues during the stage 3 of this debate. The Conservatives set out a completely different proposal than the Scottish Government, because what we were interested in was protecting specialised policing. We are interested in retaining expertise. What we're not proposing anywhere in the United Kingdom is merging specialised policing in with regular policing. We recognise the skills that those officers have and the value that they add to public safety. It's little wonder that we have the minister standing up and saying that he recognises that some people are still discontent with this process. That is because the minister continues to ignore what experts in this area are saying. No wonder they are discontented. They have been taken along on an ideological ride. That is a politically driven plan that has absolutely nothing to do with the best interests of policing. The SNP is always asking if other people have a backbone. Fulton MacGregor is telling us that my colleagues shouldn't be bringing this issue back, but they should, because sometimes the Government's got to be big enough to accept and acknowledge that it's made a mistake. Fulton MacGregor? Accept that the will of the Parliament, the democratic will of the Parliament, was the past of this bill. Oliver Mundell? Of course, I accept that, but it doesn't mean that decisions of this Parliament and particularly the Government shouldn't continue to be scrutinised, particularly as new evidence comes to light. What we've seen is time move on. We're getting closer and closer to a deadline. Excuse me, can we stop it with the sedentary interventions, please? Carry on, Mr Mundell. We're getting closer and closer to a deadline that others have described as a hard cliff face, and we're still no closer to seeing British transport police officers satisfied with the terms and conditions that are being offered. What worries me more from my discussion with rank and file officers in Police Scotland is that there is a growing resentment among them that other officers are going to be joining their force on a different set of terms and conditions after they've been through what has been a very difficult process. I think that it's very fair to say, after the first debate that we've sat through this afternoon, that Police Scotland is not in a position to prioritise what is a very complex process. I think that colleagues have made very compelling arguments from across the political divide for a pause. The question now is whether or not the Scottish Government is finally willing to listen. The last of the open debate contributions is from James Dornan. Presiding Officer, before I start with my speech, can I just say for the record you missed us earlier on that I've known Michael Matheson longer than anybody? I've known him since he was five and he was a cheeky wee, he was a cheeky wee Midden, and he's not improved at all. I have listened to his speeches. I have watched the performances here. I've heard Liam Kerr with his very soft, gentle, persuasive, loyri voice. I was almost persuaded myself, and then I realised behind that was an ideological fervour to make sure that nothing that belongs to British ever becomes Scottish, because that is not what you're about. This was agreed by the Conservatives in the Smith commission that the devolution of railway police sit down, that railway policing would be devolved. It appears to me that listening to Oliver Mundell, listening to Margaret Mitchell, that you were quite happy to agree that as long as you never had to do anything with it, because this Parliament, as Fulton has quite rightly said, passed it last year, and now what we get is let's kick it into the long grass. We get honest if you kneel baby, he doesn't support it then, still doesn't support it now, and although he got what he wanted, and at terms of amendments and on the face of the bill, he's still looking for more. So what he should be doing is we should be supporting this and we should be moving forward with it. If anybody here is seriously saying that having British transport police alongside Police Scotland is a bad thing in terms of safety and in terms of joint working, then I don't think they're paying appropriate attention. As the minister said earlier on, it's Police Scotland that go to those railway stations when there are any major issues. When there were terrorism issues, they didn't phone up the armed branch of the British transport police, and as we get there, it was Police Scotland that made sure that they got there. If they're all part of the same police force, those sort of things can happen much, much quicker, much, much smoother than they do just now. The other reason is that I had a constituent, a man, a full-grown man. He has got pretty severe mental health issues. If you find that humorous, then clearly that says quite a lot about some of the people on your benches. He got involved in an issue on the railways. He got arrested by British transport police. Not long after that, I got contacted by his parents who were distraught at the confusion and concern that they had because of the way that he was dealt with. The way that he was dealt with was not because either of those police forces were dealing with them wrong, but because they deal with things in different ways. What he would have expected from Police Scotland, he didn't get in exactly the same way from the British transport police, led to confusion for him, led to concern for his parents, and to be fair, it would have led to concern for many of the British transport police if they were part of the same police force, the same police service that had a uniform way of working. We were known exactly what he was going into and somebody with mental health issues, particularly, would not have had the concerns that he had. That is not about bettering the police system. That is about you holding on, you giving the devolution of powers but not really wanting us to use them. If you honestly think that Police Scotland taking in British transport police is going to be bad for the safety of the people in Scotland, then I think that you have got it completely wrong. In terms of conditions, that has already been worked on on a regular basis, and I am pretty sure that when we get to it, everybody is going to be happy. Obviously, there has never been a merge where everybody, people who have been moving from one to the other, have said, this sounds like a great idea. You will always get staff saying, I want to stay where I am. I have been in this group for a long, long time and I do not want to move to the other. It is common nature and I do not think that you should be making so much of it. Anyway, I support your amendment. I remind members that they should always speak through the chair, and we now move on to the closing speeches. I call Daniel Johnson. Four minutes, please, Mr Johnson. As I stand, I take a little bit of a deep breath because I think that that is what is needed at this time. Clearly, some members are getting a little bit upset that we have had two fraught debates on policing. At least it gives them the opportunity to hear from me not just once, not twice, but three times. There is an upside to everything. In all seriousness, the phrase, the will of the Parliament has been used on many occasions, and there is nothing in the motion that has been debated or discussed this afternoon that is challenging that. We are merely saying that, if integration is not going to be complete in time, if the many things that were raised by DCC Livingston yesterday at the Justice Committee will not be complete, then maybe we should think again, because what he described was a situation where, by the deadline, terms and conditions, IT, third-party contracts and pensions will not be integrated and will not be ready to be completely converged in time for the deadline. What kind of merger is it? Where such substantial issues as the terms and conditions employment, IT systems and third-party contracts are not going to be integrated, what kind of merger is that? How on earth will it operate? There is no situation where such fundamental things are not complete. You have to pause, because otherwise we will have a mess. Fulton MacGregor. Fulton MacGregor, except what I said in my speech earlier, is for Police Scotland, DCC Livingston and their oldest. That would be for them to come to the minister, to come to the Scottish Government and say that we need a pause. It is not for the Tory party to bring it to the chamber after this bill has been passed. That was the point that has been made. I can allow you a little extra time, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Now, if it was just the Tories making that point, I might well agree with Mr MacGregor. I have little time or trust in them myself, but every now and again, they happen to be right. It is not just them saying it, it is trade unions, it is representative bodies. That is who we will listen to on the benches. Those are bodies that represent the staff undertaking the work. The officers who are carrying out the duties within the bridge routes, and they are saying that this needs to be paused. That is who we will listen to. Indeed, Liam McArthur put it very well, because it now appears, given the various problems that has been outlined, that the Government simply is pursuing integration at any cost. Likewise, he was absolutely right when he raised the circumstances of the Smith commission, because there was not just one model that was put forward. Devolution had a number of three different models that could have been pursued, and the Government simply did not want to look at anything else other than complete integration with Police Scotland. The other models that could have been examined were ones that were about loose administrative alignment and accountability, and one that went further around statutory alignment but with direction from the Government. Both of those models would not have encountered the problems that are now being seen. Quite simply, the many interests groups, the many bodies that Colin Smyth laid out, their warnings and their concerns have been proved to be right, but we must also look at the key strengths and distinctiveness of British Transport policing. There is distinct law regarding the railways, a unique style, specific skillsets and, indeed, one integrated railway network across the United Kingdom. Therefore, the challenges are profound. Neil Bibby is absolutely right to raise the point around safety and concerns around that. If such fundamental issues, as I raised at the beginning of my remarks, cannot be integrated, we have to ask the question about how effective across the range duties it will be. Ultimately, we have to ask the question about the impact on staff. I think that the different employment model and the challenges that that presents pensions raises the question whether, if Chupi were to apply that, would it this merger be possible at all? My understanding of Chupi is that it has to have those things in place before a transfer can take place. Is it right that, if Chupi were not to be able to take place if it were to apply, we should carry on with that at all? Ultimately, we should heed the calls to pause this. Nigel Goodband is right. The TSAs are right. We cannot just pursue this merger at any cost. We need to pause so that we can get it right. Recognise and acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed by organisations such as the British Transport Police Federation, the other trade unions in regard to their staff's terms and conditions and the concern that they have in regard to the transfer of the BTP into a single command structure under Police Scotland. Those issues have never been ignored and we have always acknowledged them and recognised them. The most recent manifestation of those concerns and the letters that have been written by the various representative bodies, I fully acknowledge and we will continue to work with them as best we can to try to address the concerns that they raise with us and to try to offset some of the issues that they may believe that we should make further progress on as quickly as possible. However, the issue of the integration of BTP policing into a single command structure in Scotland is not a new one. It is a position that we set out back in 2011, pre-policed Scotland, in it we believe that railway policing would be better integrated into local policing in order to create that single command structure and a better level of accountability around how it operates. The whole idea of the integration of BTP policing into a single command structure, for example, with a force such as Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, is not just peculiar to Scotland. The former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary, when he was the mayor of London, was in favour of the integration of BTP in London into metropolitan police service, because it would create an integrated system that would get a single command structure as well. I know that there are still views in London that that is what should happen in order to make sure that policing above the ground is the same command structure as policing below the ground, particularly when it comes to the underground network that is so extensive in London. Members will also recognise, as my colleague comes of use of his point, the commitment from the Conservative Party to abolish BTP in order to integrate it with the civil nuclear constabulary, with MOD policing and with BTP. The reality is that BTP, at the present moment, along with those other constabularies, is on borrowed time because of the commitment that the UK Government has made to going towards infrastructure policing, which brings together, as I mentioned, railway policing and also major road policing, removing it from local constabularies. Something that was under-manifesto just in the last couple of months. I'll give way to you, Mr Mundell. Oliver Mundell. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. Can he confirm what discussions he's had with the UK Government around that proposal to establish whether or not there is, in fact, time to pause this, as we've suggested? I can allow you a little extra time. It's your Government's policy. It's not our policy. It's our policy's integration. We set that out in 2011. Your decision is to go forward with the integration to single infrastructure policing. That's your choice and your decision, not the approach that we think is an appropriate one here in Scotland. I can also pick up on the issue relating to terrorism, which has made reference to it in the Conservative motion. The reality is that when it comes to tackling the issues of terrorism within the railway network here in Scotland, it's Police Scotland that do that. BTPs have no armed policing in Scotland. They don't even have a custody facility in Scotland. Custody is provided by Police Scotland. I have four police stations in my constituency. In a recent meeting with my local commander, I asked him about the level of BTP input into dealing with policing in those four train stations. None. It's the local police officers in Police Scotland that deal with any issues on the railway network at a local level. The reality is that Police Scotland, as the second biggest force in the UK, has a significant counter-terrorism capability. The second biggest in the whole of the UK, plugged into the UK network in a way in which BTP is not, which allows us to make sure that our single integrated command structure makes sure that whether it's railways or anything else, it's all fully integrated. That's why I want to turn to the issue that Colin Smith raised. That's the idea that we will lose this specialism. The reality is that Police Scotland has a whole range of specialist areas of policing. It has border policing, airport policing, air support policing, underwater policing, firearms policing, road policing, mountain rescue policing, it has water policing as well. All those areas have a specialist need for a specialist capability and particular culture around them. There is no reason why railway policing cannot sit alongside that. I will give way to the member. Colin Smith. Is the cabinet secretary simply dismissing the concerns of the trade unions and British Transport Police, who are concerned that the uncertainty that is shown in their own staff survey, which shows that two thirds of staff may not transfer to Police Scotland because of the failure of this Government to provide long-term certainty and paid security. Are you simply prepared to dismiss that and risk the loss of experienced staff who will bring their skills to the new body in Scotland? I said at a very outset in my contribution that I recognise the concerns that have been raised by trade unions and the Federation representing their members, and we will continue to work hard to try to address those particular issues. The way in which that has been taken forward is through the joint programme board, which is jointly chaired by the Scottish Government and the UK Government, helping to manage that in anoddly fashion. I am not sure about how much time I have left, Presiding Officer. Do you have time to take on our intervention? Of transparency that we were looking at earlier, will the Government publish its full risk register in relation to the merger? The way in which all the risks are being managed is taken forward through the joint programme board. We provide details on that to the Justice Committee on a regular basis to keep them updated on those issues. Can I turn briefly to the issue of the green amendment, which my colleague made reference to, which we would have supported, because we recognise and acknowledge that there is a level of concern among members of staff and officers about some of the issues relating to terms and conditions. We will be redoubling our efforts to try to address those issues as quickly as we can, and we will continue to make sure that we do everything possible to engage with their representative bodies in addressing those issues. However, we very much remain committed to the no-determinate policy of making sure that there is a triple lock in place when it comes to jobs, pay and pensions, and in particular in pensions, the BTP officers. When they transfer into Police Scotland, they will be able to take their BTP pension with them into the service at that particular point. We are working as hard as we can to try to address some of those issues and concerns. There are complexities around it. No one has ever underestimated that, but we are doing everything that we can to manage it. I have no doubt, Presiding Officer, that when it comes to providing a single command structure in Scotland for where we are policing alongside all the other aspects of policing that take place in Scotland, we will have a much secure system than we have at the present moment, and that will help to make sure that we deliver safety on our railways just exactly the same way that we deliver safety on our roads and our communities right across Scotland in a day-end out-basis because of the dedication of our officers within Police Scotland. Thank you very much and I'll call on Jamie Greene to wind up the debate. Today's day has been an interesting one because so rarely does Opposition chamber business allow Parliament the opportunity to carry out one of its other functions, and that is to shine a light into what happens in the real world after the political decisions that we make at decision time are put into place. We shouldn't, in this chamber, just pass legislation, we should question how it is implemented. What happens when policy becomes a reality? That is the question. Today's debate brought forward by Liam Kerr does exactly just that. You can see from not just the broad wealth of experience that exists in this chamber on the subject but also the wide range of views and important opinions expressed by external stakeholders. This debate goes far beyond what one might expect of an Opposition motion. Why do I say that? It is so rare in a single debate on a single issue, in this case the merger of the BTP into Police Scotland that we hear unanimous voices from such a broad spectrum of stakeholders, all sharing concerns over the progress of this merger. It is so rare that I find myself in agreement with someone like Manuel Cortez of the TSA who said, the merger should be scrapped as it will endanger cross-border rail safety. It is so rare that I find myself in agreement with both the RMT and ASLEF, who equally raise rightful concerns over staff conditions and passenger safety. Such is the nature of the widespread concern from many corners of the political and public sphere that we will be failing in our duties where we are not to highlight it today. The concerns are as varied as the sources. On one side we have the Samaritans who acknowledge the specialist knowledge and training of BTP officers, and on another the BTP Federation themselves representing rank and file officers who say that this expertise will be diluted, their words are not mine. On another side we have ScotRail, in mind the operations of ScotRail are run by a beliol, who have experience of running the Dutch railways, stated that their experience of the Dutch system was that a loss of dedicated police services and integration with the national force could lead to a loss of specialism. Even Her Majesty's inspectorate said that no proper due diligence had been done on the business case for this, and how evident is that today. Do you know what, Presiding Officer? Ronan Mackay and Oliver Mundell are both right on this occasion. This debate should not be taking place, but the very suggestion that we should not be debating it at all is a disgraceful defence from the centre benches. The question should not be why we on these benches have to justify why a pause is required. It is the Government benches who should be explaining to us why a pause is not required. Neil Baby said that we should be listening to the concerns of officers themselves, and he is right. Liam McArthur said that the Government should be swallowing its pride and accept that there are issues with the progress of this measure. He is right. My colleague Liam Kerr opened his remarks, pointing to a number of very live and on-going issues. Yesterday, anyone who watched that footage will know that the April 2019 deadline is proving to be something of a challenge and something of a cliff edge. I was intrigued by the contribution that was made by John Finnie of the Greens. He said that there are, in his view, no issues around integrated control rooms or cross-border policing. I appreciate that Mr Finnie and I are probably on opposite sides of the view about the measure in principle, but he should accept that, like it or not, stakeholders are concerned, and it is the stakeholders' views that matter. They do have concerns. I am willing to take an intervention. I am very grateful for the member for taking an intervention on that point. Would the member acknowledge that there is on-going co-operation? We have heard it from various sources and that is not an issue. There are across the United Kingdom, there are a range of different control systems. The British transport police worked collaboratively with Police Scotland at the moment, and that would continue. Jamie Greene I think that, if there were no issues, we would not be receiving representation from such a wide group of stakeholders who are telling us that there are existing issues that need to be addressed. They have a number of concerns. It is not just control rooms. What progress has been made on pensions? What progress has been made on terms and conditions, on Joe command systems and on IT systems? If the internal BTB survey translates into reality, what would we do if two-thirds of BTB officers did not transfer to Police Scotland? What if they took retirement? What if they transferred south of the border? What if they left the force altogether? Where would that leave Police Scotland and where would that leave us? Our motion today is very clear that we respect the devolution of control of transport policing, and we respect the result of the decision of Parliament last July, but then the Government had a choice. It could have achieved devolution in other ways. It is no great secret that we oppose this merger in principle, but if it is to go ahead, the sensible thing to do is to do it in a measured way that addresses the many concerns that people have. Let us respect the will of Parliament, but let us also respect that Parliament has a duty to hold the Government to account. I say this to the Cabinet Secretary and to any member who is inclined not to support our motion today. Do not take our word for it, and with the greatest of respects to Liam Kerr, do not just take his word for it either. Listen to rank and file officers, listen to senior officers, listen to the BTB Federation, listen to Her Majesty's Inspectorate, train operators, the unions and the acting chief constable himself. April 2019 is a challenge, so we ask the Scottish Government to take a sensible pause in proceedings and to take stock of some of the concerns and issues. Those issues are not just raised by MSPs but from those who will be directly affected by the merger. It is important that we get this right, and if there are any benefits to be found in this merger, then get the merger right. I encourage members to do the right thing and support our motion this evening. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on railway policing. The next item of business is consideration of two business motions. Motion 10062 is setting out a business programme and motion 10063 on a stage 2 timetable for a bill. I would ask anyone who objects to press their request to speak button now. I call on Jovis Patrick to move the above-named motions. Thank you very much. No one has asked to speak against the motions, therefore the question is that motions 10062 and 10063 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to decision time, and there are six questions. The first question is that amendment 10038.1 in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion 10038 in the name of Liam Kerr on justice be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10038.1 in the name of Michael Matheson is yes, 64, no, 57. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 10038.4 in the name of Daniel Johnson, which seeks to amend motion 10038 in the name of Liam Kerr be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 10038 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended on justice be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10038 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended is yes, 88, no, 34. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Humza Yousaf is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson will fall. The next question is that amendment 10039.2 in the name of Humza Yousaf, which seeks to amend motion 10039 in the name of Liam Kerr on railway policing be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10039.2 in the name of Humza Yousaf is yes, 59, no, 57. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. So the final question is that motion 10039 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended on railway policing be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10039 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended is yes, 59, no, 57. There were six abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will turn now to members' business, the name of Gail Ross, on adverse childhood experiences, but we will just take a few moments for members to change seats.