���˿���

That was quite a jargon-filled response, although I understand the reason for that. You will have heard the candour in some of the responses from the front-line services represented in the previous panel about what the situation will mean in layman’s terms for people. Are we talking about, for example, delays in responses, the prioritisation of call-outs, the closure of stations or incidents not being responded to? What will this actually mean for the general public, who are worried and concerned about the situation?

That was helpful. Thank you.

I will let others come in.

I will open up a line of questioning that I hope Collette Stevenson will ask about in more detail.

The budget forecast is for flat cash settlements for the next couple of years, which will present challenges, as you have indicated. Is it fair to say that, even before that announcement, the SFRS had funding problems? My understanding is that, as far back as 2018, Audit Scotland identified a huge backlog of capital investment in the service, which is presumably the result of years of capital underinvestment. Where were we at before we got to today’s position? It is all very well looking ahead at what you might need to cut now, should a flat cash budget come to pass. However, even if the Government offers you more cash for your capital or revenue budgets, and you do not find yourself in the planning scenario that you have outlined today, that will not address the huge capital funding backlog. We know that that is putting the health, wellbeing and safety of fighters in jeopardy, given the stories that we have seen in the media in recent months.

Where were we at before now, how did we get to that point and why were things so bad in the first place?

In effect, would other types of crime, such as burglary, vandalism and car break-ins, be at the end of the queue?

That is quite a lot.

Secondly, the Scottish Police Federation, which is not here today, has submitted written evidence, in which it says that if the current plans

“come to fruition ... Crime will increase, victims ... will be let down,”

public

“confidence ... will diminish”

and

“more people”

will be left

“in crisis”

with

“many offenders unlikely to face any form of sanction, or ... any form of justice.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Seventeen per cent is quite a lot. Other than the removal of community policing or campus police and other types of community engagement, what would a 17 per cent reduction look like in the number of police officers that the public would see on the streets responding to emergencies?

Yes; I have been mulling over a supplementary question as the conversation has been going on. I will pose a scenario. If, as a result of the evidence that we have heard today, Government ministers—sitting in their offices and listening—take action, and instead of having the flat cash settlement that you have been forecasting and scenario planning around, they offer you an increase to your budget, would it simply be swallowed up by the pay increase? Of course, we do not know what any increase might be, if it occurred, but, assuming that there were an increase to your budget, do you think that that is what would happen?

It sounds to me that even a 5 per cent increase in cash terms to your budget would simply disappear into any potential pay increase anyway, so you would still be halting ICT upgrades, still have problems with fleet investment, still not be rolling out body-worn cameras and still have problems with recruitment and retention and so on. So, if the Government were to offer you more cash—you are welcome to put a number on it if you have one—would you still be staring down the barrel of potential problems and cuts?

That probably raises more questions than it answers, I am afraid, but okay.

It is important to put on record our thanks as a committee and as members to officers and staff in Police Scotland who do an incredible job. That being said, to sum up Mr Page’s opening statement, if the RSR comes to fruition and you are offered a flat cash settlement, it sounds like you will be facing a simple choice between two options.

Option 1 is a pay freeze for five years, with all the implications that that would have. However, it sounds as if you have written off that option, as it is simply not doable because of the effect that it might have and, indeed, the resistance that you would be met with.

Option 2 is to offer some form of annual pay rise to staff and officers. Modelled on a 5 per cent pay rise, that would equate—if I am correct—to a loss of 4,400 staff over five years, which sounds like a lot.

What effect would that have on your ability to perform your basic statutory functions as a police force, notwithstanding any additional upgrade and investment projects that you may have to shelve? I am talking about your core work in protecting the public and in responding to their needs as the first response body.

The 4,400 number is modelled on a 5 per cent pay increase. If that pay rise was to increase as a result of industrial relations conversations, or industrial disputes or action, would the figure of 4,400 go up and, if so, by how much?