Chamber and committees

Absolutely. I appreciate that £1 million or £1.5 million sounds like a lot of money, but in a £30 billion budget, it is not so much. When the Scottish Government was promoting the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, it spent £400,000 or thereabouts on that. A third of the budget for a commissioner was spent, not on introducing that act, but simply advertising it on social media and through other forms of communication. The cost for the commissioner sounds like a lot of money, but it is not in real terms, and this is something that needs to happen.

Two weeks ago, we heard that, although the Government was going to commit £10 million to changing places toilets—that money has been promised for the past four to five years—that has now been taken away. If that had related to another protected characteristic, there would have been outrage in the Parliament, and people would have been emailing and writing to members. However, because it has happened to disabled people and, looking at it realistically, because of all the problems that they have, there has not been much of a campaign on the issue. However, that will be a massive blow to many people with disabilities.

The commissioner is an investment in relation to what the Government, local authorities and other public bodies do. We are setting this up over the long term; it is not just a one-year budget decision. I think that it is worth funding the commissioner until that review, if it ever takes place.

How do delays in funding decisions and payments by the Scottish Government or councils affect the ability of voluntary organisations to retain staff and maintain services?

I think that the convener was going to tell me off there. It is important that we get your views on the record, but could we keep the answers slightly briefer? Otherwise I will be told off by the convener once you all leave the room.

With regard to the letters about in-principle decisions, are we going back to what the situation was like before the pandemic? Is the situation something that disappeared during the pandemic and has come back, or are we talking about a longer period of time?

Does not having multiyear funding have a greater impact on smaller charities? From a rural perspective, Lynn Tulloch, is there a greater impact if you cannot plan ahead because of that? This time, let us start with Ran Majumder and then go to Lynn.

The Scottish Government is consulting on disclosure fees. You will be aware that the Government pays for third sector organisations at the moment but is consulting on whether that cost should revert back to the applicant or the charity. If that happened, what effect would it have on volunteering in the areas that you work in?

Good morning. I will start with funding, and specifically multiyear funding. From your experience in your different organisations, what is the benefit of multiyear funding? Are there any disadvantages to multiyear funding? You probably want it for 100 years but, realistically, what timescale are we looking at for multiyear funding? Is it two, three or five years? From your experience, what would work best? We will start with Judith Turbyne and work our way along the line of witnesses.

I will follow up on that briefly. Obviously the money itself is important, but is there, to a degree, a perception of work in the third sector that is based on the funding model? The Government guarantees funding for public bodies and public services for indefinite periods, so a doctor or someone who works in the Parliament knows that they are going to get paid, and have a job, next year, but that is not true for the third sector. Does that affect recruitment, because people do not want that lack of stability?

I see the problem that you are outlining, Rachel, but what is the solution? How do we get around that problem?

I want to address one other issue, convener.