Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee 02 March 2011

02 Mar 2011 · S3 · Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee

Item of business

Public Records (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Hyslop, Fiona SNP Lothians Watch on SPTV

Amendment 3, in my name, will help to address voluntary bodies’ concerns that they will have to work with multiple records management plans for the different authorities with which they work, and the local authorities’ need for flexibility in their plans. We need a balance between those two interests.Amendment 3 will make it easier for groups of authorities to choose to have common records management plans for separate functions. That approach could be used, for example, in relation to child care functions. I will come back to that amendment later.Amendments 33 and 34 would remove the keeper’s ability to require authorities to use separate plans or common plans, and leave it solely to authorities to decide. The keeper would still have to agree to their proposed use of such plans, but would no longer have the power to require authorities to use separate or common plans if the authorities did not ask to do so.The power to require the use of common plans, and common plans for separate functions, is considered necessary so that the keeper can deal with voluntary sector concerns about dealing with a number of different plans in relation to the functions that those bodies carry out on behalf of public authorities. That is where the issue of balance between the two sets of interests comes in.The power to require separate plans for separate functions may also be required in the case of the Scottish ministers, who are listed as one authority in the schedule to the bill but whose functions are wide ranging and disparate.Amendment 3 addresses concerns that child care organisations in the voluntary sector have raised about having to work with a number of different plans for different authorities, which they say would impose a huge administrative burden on their organisations and take staff time away from the provision of front-line services.The intention behind the bill as it is drafted is to allow or require groups of two or more authorities to have a common records management plan, which will reduce the likelihood of the scenario that concerns the voluntary sector. Amendment 3 gives groups of authorities additional flexibility to decide whether to make use of separate plans, common plans for all functions or common plans for separate functions.Section 1(5) currently requires an authority to have separate plans for separate functions, but only on the keeper’s initiative. I have explained just now why it is important for the keeper to retain that power. Amendment 3 empowers local authorities by allowing them to initiate that themselves and to choose to do it with the keeper's approval or, as amendment 33, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, suggests, with the agreement of the keeper.The result would be that, through a combination of subsections (5) and (6), a group of authorities would be able to propose a common plan for some of their functions and separate plans for others. For example, local authorities could together have a common plan for functions that deal with looked-after children while they each have their own separate plans for the rest of their functions. That will remain dependent on the keeper’s approval—or rather, given the amendment to which we have just agreed, the keeper’s agreement—although it will be for the authorities to make their own assessment of where it is appropriate to have common plans. We are trying to give local authorities the power that they need while balancing the interests of the voluntary sector.Amendment 35 addresses a similar issue to amendment 3 and would clarify that authorities can have common plans for some functions and separate plans for remaining functions. Amendment 35 is not necessary, because amendment 3 already makes it possible while also giving authorities increased flexibility to ask to have separate plans. We have come at the same issue, and I appeal to the committee to agree that amendment 3 covers all the interests, in which case we do not necessarily need amendments 33, 34 or 35 in that regard.

Search Hansard contributions

Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee 02 March 2011

In the same item of business