Mr. Sebastian Barnes:

While Mr. Coffey is reading the risk matrix, I will answer that question. Mr. Coffey spoke about how the money is spent. In that regard, there is a real need to prioritise. It is not the council's business to think about how to prioritise, but there is scope to do so. That is what politicians should be thinking about. There is a difference between how to spend money and how much to spend. We are not advocating putting money into the rainy day fund this year, because we think the economy is broadly balanced. However, if we continue to have very strong growth in the next few years but in a way that is ultimately not sustainable, it would lead to a more balanced pattern of growth and perhaps accommodate spending in other areas to build up the rainy day fund. That would help to balance the economy on the upside. If some of these risks do hit, for example, if we wake up in 2020 and discover that there has been a really nasty Brexit and the economy is doing badly, the rainy day fund can then be unwound. Spending could be delayed until the risk happens, and that money will then be available in a way that it would not otherwise be. There is a distinction between prioritisation and dealing with very important emerging risks on the one hand, and the pace of the overall balance over time on the other. We are arguing for building up the rainy day fund while the times are good, as a contingency to use if there is a downturn. Of course, if that money has not been put into a rainy day fund, if it has been locked into spending, it would be much harder to adjust if these risks do come to pass, which obviously we hope does not happen.