That is useful.

Vicky Irons, those mixed portfolios are key to how social workers are trained, learn their profession and become qualified. How do you see all those functions landing in a national care service?

The area that I am interested in has been touched on already, but I am keen to dig a little more, as it involves the nub of my concerns, which are to do with the range of work that is undertaken by social work and children’s services and whether the national care service will focus predominantly or too much on the care issue.

Fiona Duncan, as you mentioned that issue, can you illustrate the breadth of areas that your social work colleagues deal with, beyond and including the issues of care?

I will reflect on some of the frustrations that you have expressed—as a Dundonian, I have certainly observed them—about the fact that the city council puts money into the IJB and then takes it out to plug its own financial black hole, which means that you cannot plan for services and there are problems with the money. You have expressed that challenge well.

On the model that you have postulated, would we not be looking at just replicating some of that, perhaps with the involvement of a third agency, if you were looking at bringing in children’s services and there was to be a whole other budget for that? Is it your suggestion that we pull all of that together? Is the logical conclusion of your model not to also bring education into the picture?

We are being asked to agree to a major change by passing this framework bill. Essentially, we would be approving things in principle, with the model to follow afterwards. I recognise that it is challenging to imagine what that process might look like.

We have just touched on the Promise and the Feeley review. What evidence have the witnesses seen marshalled to support the change that we as a Parliament are being asked to approve? What is the evidence base for moving children’s services? I will start with Ross McGuffie.

Jude, do your members know what is happening? Do they know that pensions are not included in TUPE regulations arrangements—there is no clarity on that—and that they could be moving employer to a completely new body with no indication of what might happen?

Thank you.

I thank committee members for their feedback and the discussion on my amendments. I take on board in particular the constructive comments from Fulton MacGregor and Karen Adam regarding some of the specific detail.

I disagree, in a broader sense, that the amendment goes against the principles of the bill. The bill as it stands significantly liberalises the process—rightly so, in the demedicalisation that it achieves. Amendment 45 is about putting a further safeguard in place in the bill as it stands, so I do not agree that it goes against its principles.

That being said, I am very keen to look for a sensible centre ground that can command the broadest possible public support. I still think that there is work to be done in this area. Taking on board those comments from colleagues, I ask members to allow me to continue to pursue conversations with colleagues in committee and elsewhere, so at this stage I ask the committee’s leave to withdraw amendment 45.

Amendments 45 and 48 seek to address concerns of the broad public regarding the robustness of the legislation. We are absolutely clear that Scotland requires a better system for trans people. There has already been discussion this morning around bad-faith actors, and I believe that the proposed system could be improved in order to command broader public support across Scotland. The system must be robust for trans people and non-trans people. In particular, it must recognise the very real concerns of women regarding the possibility of abuse of the system.

The bill is not merely an amendment to the 2004 act. Demedicalisation, which Labour supports, is a profound change and opens up the process considerably. The Government recognises that and that is one of the core purposes of the bill. As such, it requires a different kind of safeguard against those who might abuse the legislation. As it stands, a balance must be struck and I believe that more could be done to achieve that.

Amendments 45 and 48 are modelled on the process for obtaining a passport, which is a well-understood and commonly respected process for changing personal details that applies to every one of us. When someone changes that documentation it requires a signature from a person of good standing whom they know. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that an application is made as part of the community, rather than as a solitary individual.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for engaging on the amendment. The cabinet secretary has indicated that the statutory declaration is a sufficient safeguard. I ask her to put her thinking on that point on the record at this stage. I believe that that reasoning has not featured in any of the discussion of the bill, its consultation, ministerial correspondence, the stage 1 report or the stage 1 debate. At this point, it would be good to hear the cabinet secretary’s rationale.

I have concerns that a statutory declaration on its own could be seen as transactional because it amounts to a small fee being paid to a lawyer to witness a signature and say that current identity documents have been produced—it is not about knowing someone. The broader effect of amendments 45 and 48 would be to raise the bar for bad-faith actors and would increase the confidence for trans people seeking recognition.

I am keen to hear from other members and the cabinet secretary on the sufficiency of the statutory declaration in the bill as it is proposed and on the rationale for a passport-style system being too high a bar for the GRC process yet being appropriate for the process of changing personal details for every member of the public.

I move amendment 45.

Councillor Buchanan, is there a risk that children’s services could become defined by the idea of care rather than necessarily by work around prevention?

[Inaudible.]—the list provided to the committee is not exhaustive, I think. It includes the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Children Act 1975, the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984, the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007, the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019. There is interaction with a very complex area of primary legislation. Is it possible to deal properly with that in secondary legislation?