Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be useful.

Minister, please—I think that it should be a simple question to answer.

But we have no idea at the moment how many of those people will be transferred to a new body. I am just clarifying what you have said and whether that is the case. Indeed, Mr Stewart has just said that we do not know whether they will transfer or not.

As you will be aware, the Scottish Association of Social Work has asked for a pause on the bill. It is gravely concerned about the shape of all of this, because it does not have any answers. Have you considered at all in the financial memorandum the issue of pensions, which are not included under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, and what will happen to social workers’ pensions?

I will finish off the questions on this area. If it is okay, convener, I will ask one more question, which is on resourcing.

Is the Government minded to amend schedule 3 to narrow the scope of the powers in the bill that relate to the issues that we have been discussing and to give some clarity on what is in and what is out when it comes to children’s services? I understand the arguments about co-design and the process, but it feels to me as though we are going back to managing risk. Perhaps the minister can reflect on where the lines fall between services; in fact, he himself has talked eloquently about the gap between different areas. Minister, can you reflect on my suggestion and see whether it might be a possibility?

More broadly on the issue of resourcing, you have talked in your evidence today about national collective bargaining, essentially around social work services, and you have also talked about a once-for-Scotland commissioning of services in this area. You have mentioned a variety of areas, including kinship care and levelling up the money in that respect, but I have not heard any analysis of the resourcing for any of those areas.

Yes, with particular reference to social workers’ working conditions in relation to pensions and whether that has been factored into the financial calculations.

I found all of those answers to be useful, particularly Ms Colvin’s description of things. The timing of the bill is a concern, given the national crisis in social care and the huge issues with staffing and paying for that service. Indeed, it is one of the main causes of the disaster that we are seeing unfold in our national health service with regard to delayed discharge. Surely we are not intending, at this point in time, to drop children’s services—services for the most vulnerable young people—into that maelstrom of a crisis. From the evidence that we have received so far, it is quite clear that people are concerned about the risk of children’s services being lost in a care service that is dealing with that crisis.

As my question is about children, I would like to hear from Clare Haughey first.

I have just a short question for Ms Haughey. How many children’s social workers are you proposing to move to the national care service?

What about the social workers?

But it is not an answer to my question, which was about the number of social workers who will be transferred. I think that the answer is that you do not know.

My question for Mr Stewart was on the specific area of kinship care. In essence, how many kinship care payments would need to be levelled up to a higher level and how much would that cost? The answer is that we do not know.