Chamber and committees

I can give you an example. I appreciate that it might relate to another portfolio, but I can quote one letter to a third sector organisation. It says:

“Thank you for your application to the Scottish Government’s Children, Young People, Families and Adult Learning Third Sector Fund. We had planned to inform applicants of funding decisions by the end of 2022. Unfortunately, this will not happen. As a result, the funding decisions will be shared in early 2023 with the intention of commencing in July 2023.”

That means that anybody who employs staff has to hand out notices, because they have been given a timescale of nine months to wait but need funding now to pay salaries. They face real uncertainty. I hope that you will investigate that, because the committee has had real difficulty in getting to the bottom of the issue. We are being told there are differing delays across the board, but nobody from the Government is telling us in detail why the delays are happening, how much funding in the budget has been delayed and what the impact is.

One issue that organisations have raised is about why we are not moving to multiyear funding. I know that there are challenges around that. We have the debate every year; we should be having it every three years, but we have it every year. Nevertheless, there must be a way for priority projects that deal with these issues to be given at least a minimum commitment of funding over more than one year, in order to avoid such issues.

We know that budgets vary, but the whole Government budget does not vary. The Government does not tell local government, “We are going to completely stop all your education funding.” However, that is perhaps not a good example to choose. The Government knows that there is a minimum baseline level that will be carried over each year. Why, for priority projects, do we not have a minimum level for more than one financial year, bearing in mind the knowledge that the overall figure might change?

The particular cases in which decisions have been delayed until the next financial year are not for the long-term—they are a short-term challenge at the moment. It would be good for the committee to hear about the full extent of the problem for disabled people across portfolios—I appreciate that the matter cuts across portfolios—and on what action the Government is taking to tackle it, because it is causing a lot of uncertainty.

I raised a particular case in the chamber with you a few weeks ago.

It is about consistency in the evaluation.

I want to come back to the point about the recent cut to the budget. Like you, I am confused about the impact. One issue that organisations have raised with me has been the delays in allocating funding, although I am not sure—I do not know whether this is something that you have picked up from your work—whether the delay was caused by the £53 million not being forthcoming or just general delays in the whole system. At the moment, many organisations are in a really precarious position and are waiting for funding that normally would have been allocated, but that has not happened. Have you picked up that in your work?

I want to follow up on that point with Emma Congreve. Is the challenge the fact that there is such a cocktail of different funding pots that all have their own criteria and evaluation? Are you arguing that we should try to streamline that and bring the funds together?

You touch on a major issue for an organisation that I am involved with at the moment. It has had a funding application with the Scottish Government for months. Where are the delays coming from? Why is it different this year from how it was two or three years ago? What has happened to cause the delays?

Funding in general seems to be a bit of a lottery. Groups of people are employed full time just, in effect, constantly chasing funding. What do we need to do about streamlining the process to make it a more regular source of funding rather than one that requires constant running around trying to get it? Surely we need to do something about streamlining it.

My question, before we started debating figures, was about how that will impact on support for business. What direction will you give to agencies about how to implement what, as you have said, is a very challenging financial budget for them?

Deputy First Minister, those are revenue budgets. You have not mentioned the cuts in capital. The overall level of reduction is quite clear in both real and cash terms for all three of the agencies, if we combine capital and revenue investments as well as other changes. It is not just revenue; it is capital.

What happens when you include financial transactions funding?