Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I live across the road from one of them.

On the modelling of a potential 5 per cent annual pay rise for the next couple of years—it sounds as though that has been rejected at this stage, so it could be more—and with a flat cash settlement, you would be looking at a reduction of more than 780 full-time equivalent firefighters and around 30 full-time appliances out of 120. That is quite a big reduction. What are the consequences of that?

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?

We asked in June. We are not asking something new.

I am happy with that.

To follow on from that point, there are different bits of the bill and the implementation will come at different periods. Obviously, there was a rush to get the bill through to deal with the issue of proxy purchase and supply. I am not entirely convinced that people understand what that is or what it means. For example, parents out there might be thinking about buying fireworks. Does it mean that they cannot use fireworks in their household or if their children are there?

We understand the more obvious problem that existed, and that the bill was trying to address. However, I am concerned that, although the practice becomes illegal in five days’ time, there has been no public awareness raising. That is despite calls for that in our report and throughout the process; indeed, amendments were lodged to try to push the Government to do that. I would need to go back and check the Official Report, but I think that we were given categoric reassurances, and I am pretty sure that the Minister for Community Safety asked us not to move some of those amendments on the premise that the Government would be robust in its public awareness-raising activities. However, I have not seen or heard anything on television or radio or in ambient media—there has been zero coverage. The worry is that people will carry on doing what they do and find themselves falling foul of the law, having not known that the measure is coming into play.

There are other aspects. The other side of the coin is that people might think that we also banned fireworks, which we did not. There has not been much awareness raising on what we actually passed into law and what is happening this year versus what is happening next year.

I ask the Government to reflect on that. We are going into recess, so we will not be able to look at it until after 10 October. We are also looking at the letter only today, just a few days before the implementation of the SSI, which is not ideal.