Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. I appreciate that.

The percentage of respondents who self-identified as coming from a working-class background was 11 per cent. That seems low, considering the figure for the general population. What classifications were used? How were those from a working-class background defined and identified?

Thank you.

I will carry on the line of questioning about additional powers. If you had the power to carry out, say, a public value investigation, would there be any crossover between your work and that of the Auditor General for Scotland?

That would be helpful—thank you.

Okay. You talked about the difficulty with the budget never being enough, taking on extra responsibilities, child-friendly complaints and a national whistleblowing office. What burden would any new powers or responsibilities—whether they related to public value investigations or taking complaints in any form—put on your office’s budget? What additional budget would be required to fulfil those potential new powers?

The research focuses entirely on candidates. Is any follow-up work planned to survey those who were successfully elected to get a picture of how many female councillors there are and how many councillors there are, according to age bracket, education level and socioeconomic background? Is any follow-up work planned for the councillor cohort so that we can get a picture of what that looks like?

I will move on to another area. You have touched on the MATHLR figures. I want to bring it back to a stage before that, and to the housing need and demand assessment tool that informs those figures. Last week at committee, we heard contrasting evidence from witnesses who said that the HNDA tool was not fit for purpose because it both underestimated and overestimated figures. I am also concerned that it does not fully take into account the number of concealed households out there, which is a potential obstruction for young people who, clearly, have both a need and a demand to go out and make their own way. I wonder whether, given those conflicting views from witnesses, there is enough confidence in that tool and whether the work that has informed the MATHLR figures is robust enough.

Trade unions and local authorities have expressed concerns about a potential wholesale transfer of staff and assets to a new directorate, essentially. However, the minister set out a different direction of travel when he was at the committee. He said that any transfer of assets or staff to the provider of last resort would be only in the event of a care home failure or a service failure.

What is the current situation in terms of the provider of last resort? How would the national care service change that in light of how the minister set things out? I will come to Mike Burns first.

Thanks for that.

This is my second question. The review of adult social care reported that

“Trust is not currently in plentiful supply in social care support”.

Do the witnesses agree, and do you feel that the situation is the same when it comes to national health service provision and, if not, why there might be a disparity in terms of trust not being there in social care settings but being there in health settings? That is for Sophie Lawson, first.

We have heard concerns from local authorities and trade unions about the prospect of a wholesale transfer of staff and assets to a new national service. Last week, the minister tried to allay those concerns by saying that it would only be a provider of last resort, in the event of a failure. What has led to that level of confusion? Why was there such concern in the sector about a wholesale transfer of staff? What would be your view on that if it came to pass?