Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Some of the responses to the consultation identify another aspect, which is how well money is spent. Is another element the principles by which the decision making is carried out? “Subsidiarity” is a bit of an obscure word, but do you think that at least some consideration should be given to ensuring that decision making happens as close as possible to the point at which it takes effect? Would COSLA like to see that being taken into account in the review?

I will move on to the Scottish Property Federation’s submission. As a former retailer, I was pleased that the federation highlighted the issues that that industry faces. The specific point is that we cannot rely on non-domestic rates, but there is a broader point, which is that the framework document treats resource funding as fixed and uncontrollable. To my mind, there is insufficient examination of what things the Government can control to increase its revenue. The primary one is income tax.

That problem is set to increase, as set out in the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast. Does the Scottish Property Federation have thoughts about what sorts of things need to be included? What levers and dynamics are at play in the economy that the review should take into account?

I will ask each of you a question. I will begin with Alastair Sim, and I will pick up from where Liz Smith left off.

In your submission, you state that, since 2014-15, the teaching grant has declined by 13 per cent. Will you bring to life for us the practical impacts of that? I think that your submission is saying that that slow decline cannot carry on. If we are sitting here in five years, and that trend has straight lined, what will be the consequences for higher education as a sector and for individual institutions?

I will ask a direct follow-up question to that. Obviously, institutions cannot charge fees for tuition but will that lead to a situation in which they charge fees for things for which they can? For example, will they increase accommodation fees or fees for access to other things on campus that are not tuition?

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?

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?

Thank 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.