Chamber and committees

Thank you.

In that case, if a 5 per cent pay offer were rejected and you had to pay more to keep officers—or, at least, to stop industrial action, strikes or whatever method would be available to them—what would happen to that 4,400 figure? Would we be talking about 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000? Would it double? Would a 10 per cent offer mean a reduction of 8,000 or 9,000?

So it is 225 people for every percentage-point pay rise.

We quite literally did not fix the roof while the sun was shining. The roofs have fallen down in some fire stations. That must present a huge challenge and risk. Fourteen stations is a lot to not be in satisfactory condition. It is no wonder that the unions are up in arms over that. It sounds as if the working conditions for some people are unacceptable.

Half a billion quid is a lot of cash to have as the cost of a backlog, and that developed when inflation was low, construction costs were low and budgets were going up. Now we are staring the opposite in the face. It seems very unlikely that you will ever get that amount of money. If you did not get what you asked for when times were good, how are you going to get £62 million when times are tough? What would be your request to the Government, given what we are talking about today in relation to cash budgets?

How much of this is about your putting on a face to show a strong message to the Government that a flat cash settlement is simply not on? Is it realistic to say that you would close down the 101 service? Is it realistic to say that you would have to pick and choose which call-outs you attend? In reality, would there be a delay in answering 999 calls? In reality, would those calls not be responded to or even answered at all?

Thanks for that further clarification. To be clear on the numbers for the modelling of the 4,500, did you say that you had modelled a 17 per cent reduction in police officers and a 31 per cent reduction in staff, which would be back-office operational staff—non-warranted staff?

Are you talking about a scenario in which, given reduced numbers, you would only send officers out if something was dreadfully serious, such as a life-threatening situation or serious violence?

I want to ask about two things. First—and I apologise if I have misunderstood this—I thought that the modelling of a potential reduction of nearly 4,500 staff and officers was the worst case, but you are saying that it is not.

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.