We would need to identify the potential risk of that mid-year revision before we think about the overall annual settlement. It would be helpful if you had some insight, because it is a simple replication of this year’s numbers—I am always quite suspicious of forecasts that are identical to this year’s actual spend.

I was going to flag that. I recall having this conversation last year, and the increase in what was classed as income of £1.7 million in effect became a deficit to you, and that money had to be recouped through the SCF. My concern is that next year’s costs simply replicate this year’s costs. However, you have not received your statement yet. What happens if that says that that has reduced in value by £2 million? Suddenly, your £15.8 million ask will become £17.8 million. There is a huge unknown with that. I appreciate that it is out of your control, but that was a huge part of why we had to give you so much extra money last year.

I would have preferred that you came in and said, “Look, there is stuff in this report we do not like, so I cannot sign up to the report and its recommendations.” If you had been honest with us from the minute that you walked in the door, we would not be having this conversation. I will finish where I started in my supplementary questions—there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Auditor General, but be honest about it. That is all we ask for.

It is a good example of that. However, David gave a really good example of the oversight group going to ministers and civil servants at the most senior level and saying, “We have a problem here as this policy has been paused”—and nothing happened. That is not the local authority’s fault.

I will move on to COSLA.

We received a letter from COSLA just two days ago, ahead of the session. I appreciate that you did not write the letter but it has your logo on it, so I will ask you about it. It is from Councillor Buchanan, who is your children and young people spokesperson. He made the valid point that local authorities make annual budget decisions within the confines of the funding arrangements that they work to. However, he then went on to say that

“COSLA cannot comment on gaps within each of our 32 councils.”

That leads me to ask what the point of COSLA is in this area. You have a commitment to keep the Promise, but you can talk only about the generality of what local authorities do and are clearly unwilling to criticise individual councils. The impression that I get is that, if there are specific failures in specific parts of Scotland, which we know there are, COSLA seems quite unwilling or reticent to unearth those local failings. Ultimately, it is local delivery that will meet local needs, is it not?

Thank you.

That is helpful feedback. Mr Rennick, will you give Mr Anderson more than 15 minutes of your time? This is an extremely important matter.

I appreciate that time is ticking on, so I will try to make my last two questions brief. Workforce is an important issue that is covered in the report. Exhibit 8 provides us with a nice visual way of understanding the scale of the problem that we have at the moment. To pick a few examples, 13 per cent of social workers who were asked were very likely to leave their jobs in the next 12 months—I presume that that is a fairly high figure—half of foster carers have considered resigning, half experience burnout and poor wellbeing and some 40 per cent of children and young people social care staff do not feel safe at work. Those startling statistics paint a worrying picture of the workforce required to deliver the Promise, do they not?

My final question is simply this. We are now five years on from the Promise being made. There is clearly an ambition and a lot of good will in the room among stakeholders to meet the Promise, but in your professional judgment are we on track to do so by 2030? I am happy to go along the panel to hear answers.

Good morning. I want to get some clarity on the letter from your organisation that we were given sight of. Before I do so, I should caveat this by saying that there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with an Auditor General report. If Audit Scotland has said something, and you disagree with it, that is fine, but be honest about that. Unfortunately, in the opening statements, we heard phrases such as “we welcome the report and the recommendations” and “we accept the report and the recommendations”, but that is not what it says on this bit of paper.

Rather than taking a view on it, we are trying to get to the bottom of whether The Promise Scotland does or does not accept the report. You cannot come to committee and say, “We do accept it”, but then, on paper, say that you do not. The letter has your organisation’s letterhead on it and, on the back, it says “Chair—The Promise Scotland”, so we have to take at face value that this is the view of The Promise Scotland, and not simply that of an individual within the organisation. Which is it?