Seòmar agus comataidhean

Tess White has a supplementary question.

We move to questions from Paul Sweeney, who joins us remotely.

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to.

That concludes consideration of those instruments.

We need to move on, Mr Sweeney, because lots of other members are keen to ask questions. I call Sandesh Gulhane.

Item 3 is the formal debate on the instruments on which we have just taken evidence. I remind the committee that officials may not speak in the debate.

The minister will speak to and move motions S6M-12220 and S6M-12221.

The question is, that motion S6M-12221 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of one negative instrument—the Regulation of Care (Social Service Workers) (Scotland) Order 2024. The instrument relates to registration of social workers and its purpose is to reduce the number of parts in the register from 23 to four by creating only two categories of social services worker, rather than having 21.

The policy note states that the objective of the instrument is

“To make registration, and being registered, straightforward and easy to understand.”

It also states that

“The current Register structure has developed over time since the introduction of registration for social workers in 2003 ... the structure of the Register needs to change to reflect changing and emerging roles, as well as changes in the way services are delivered.”

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting on 5 March 2024 and made no recommendations on it. No motion to annul has been lodged in relation to the instrument.

If members have no comments, does the committee agree to make no recommendations in relation to the order?

Members indicated agreement.

On the flipside of that, if it was found that a 200m exclusion zone was not required for a particular premises—I will use the Queen Elizabeth university hospital as an example, as I am familiar with that site—would you expect, anticipate or hope that the Government would move quickly to reduce the size of the buffer zone?

I will reflect your language back to you. You spoke about the need to move quickly enough and in a timely manner in terms of expansion. Would you expect the Government to have a similar attitude to reducing a 200m zone?