���˿���

Finally, I come to you, Mr Bradley. I was listening to your interaction with the convener, and it struck me that we continue to talk about the budget and the voluntary sector as though it is just that—a sector that is made up of volunteers doing nice extra things. Do we need to have a proper discussion about that and reassess it? I do not think that that is the nature of most of the organisations that we are talking about. We are talking about independent, not-for-profit, service providers. They are staffed by professionals, and the services that they deliver are delivered by professionals. Indeed, for a significant number, that is all or the majority of what they do. Essentially, they deliver services on behalf of the public sector.

Is that a fair reflection? Do we need to have a grown-up conversation about the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I will pick up on comments from both the convener and Douglas Lumsden.

I am most interested in the answers that you submitted to the committee’s second question. The convener asked you a little about the evidence that you alluded to in your answers. A number of comments and submissions have questioned whether the three top priorities that have been identified are sufficient. I do not think that anyone has questioned whether it is right for those priorities to be there, but questions have been raised about whether they fully capture the picture. In particular, with regard to the third priority, which is

“• Securing a stronger, fairer, greener economy”,

that one bullet point is doing an awful lot of work.

If you were to add one or two bullet points to that list of priorities—obviously, one would not want to add dozens—what would they be? Likewise, I would be interested to hear what you think an analysis of the drivers might look like, to supplement what you have said about the use of the SIMD as a data source.

I am looking again at COSLA’s answer to question 3, which talks about the need for recognition of the long-term pressures on public services. A comprehensive spending review, which is essentially what this process is, is not about simply mapping out how you intend to spend money over multiple years; it is also a point for reflection on how effective your spending has been in the past.

I wonder if you are saying that there is insufficient recognition not only of the role that local government plays in making things better across the three priorities but of the fact that underfunding of local government is making those things worse. Is that a point that you want to make? If so, are there any particular examples that you want to pull out with regard to where the financial situation in which local government finds itself makes those things better or worse?

Does Eileen Rowand want to add anything?

Does Eileen Rowand have any final comments before I hand over to colleagues?

That link between the planning system and productivity in the economy is often overlooked.

After making that comment, I should probably advise members that my wife is a planning lawyer. That does not prevent me from railing against the planning system when I am at home.

I just did a quick word count of the resource spending review framework document, and I was surprised to find that “jobs” appears only once, “employment” appears only twice and “productivity” appears only once. Do witnesses agree that the framework and, once it is produced, the review should probably feature those words a few more times than that? It is a slightly flippant question but I want to put it to you.

It was essentially discretionary, and perhaps it needs to be. However, it cannot, therefore, be entirely objective, can it? Will there be more work to open up the final round of decision making? There is anxiety as to precisely what was used to make the final decisions once the scoring had taken place.

On a practical level, I am thinking about local authorities that are looking at bids for the next round of funding. Local authorities such as Angus Council and North Lanarkshire Council made unsuccessful bids, although North Lanarkshire is a priority 1 area. Will those bids and the fact that other local authorities did not submit any bids at all be taken into consideration?

In the convener’s constituency, the Ardeer project, which involves nuclear fusion, is part of the North Ayrshire bid. That has energy security implications and potentially much wider externalities, but that does not seem to be captured in the current methodology. Might those sorts of things be considered in future funding rounds?

That is very helpful.

I have a final question. The common thread through my questions is that productivity and ensuring quality are big complicated issues that cost money. The levelling up fund is worth £800 million in Scotland over the coming years, but that is set against a Scottish economy that is worth about £150 billion—give or take—a year. At a system level, what do you expect the outcomes to be, in financial terms or using other measures, from the levelling up fund?