Public Records (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7900, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Public Records (Scotland) Bill.
14:42
I am pleased to open the debate on the general principles of the Public Records (Scotland) Bill. I thank those who gave evidence and thank the convener and members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I welcome their support for the general principles of the bill, and I will seek to address some of the key issues that they highlighted.
The bill has its origins in Tom Shaw’s report on the historical abuse of looked-after children, which was published in 2007 and accepted by all parties in Parliament. Tom Shaw underlined the lessons of his report in evidence on the bill that he gave to the committee. His powerful and compelling evidence showed the human cost of record-keeping failures. He repeated his recommendation on the need for new legislation to cover all public records. That is why we have introduced this comprehensive bill, which covers all functions that are carried out by the public authorities that are listed in it.
The bill is not only about past problems. As a minister who previously had responsibility for children, I am familiar with the outcome of the Kerelaw inquiry in 2009. It found instances of lost records, files that were difficult to locate and problems in accessing older electronic records. I am conscious that, if there had been improvements to records management such as those that we now propose, the findings would have been different.
Some people have argued that we do not need to legislate, because a voluntary approach will achieve the same result. However, the existing system is essentially voluntary, and had it worked properly we would not have had the Shaw and Kerelaw findings with regard to records management. Therefore, I am pleased that the committee agreed to back the general principles of the bill and took the view that there was a strong moral obligation on public authorities to manage personal records effectively.
The committee expressed concerns about the representations that it received that the bill was disproportionate and would create a heavy burden on public authorities, and particularly on the voluntary sector. I emphasise that, from the outset, our approach has been light touch and we have produced a tightly drawn bill. It is about only the management of public records, not their content or how long they are to be kept, which are matters for individual authorities and existing regulatory bodies. For example, the getting it right for every child programme means that decisions about what is kept come from the professional specialists in child protection and health, therefore Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, the national health service and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities should lead on the content of records.
The bill is about how to manage records once they exist. Decisions about what records are to be created are for the authorities that create them. The keeper of the records of Scotland will determine the model records management plan to assist public bodies in preparing their own plans to improve their records management and will take advice from different sectors.
I recently discussed with COSLA my keenness for it and others to advise on what should be in the model plan for local government, for example. The keeper and his staff will work in a complementary partnership with sector specialists. My officials are considering an amendment at stage 2 to make that clear, and we are reviewing the language in the bill to emphasise our aim of encouraging self-improvement as opposed to dictating solutions.
I note the concerns that the committee raised about the obligations that will be placed on public bodies, and the genuine concerns that we heard from people in the voluntary sector, as contractors for public authorities. I am committed to working with public authorities and contractors to address those concerns.
I also note the committee’s concerns that the bill might place an administrative burden on contractors and that public authorities might overimplement their obligations under a records management plan, which could incur record-keeping costs for small organisations. However, let us not forget that small bodies often do important work and generate important records. We need to find ways to make that easier for them and to give them confidence about what they need to do. The model records management plan and the keeper’s guidance will help to do that.
Concerns were expressed about being forced to keep everything by risk-averse public authorities. The bill does not place any direct responsibility on voluntary or private sector contractors and it does not give public authorities any power to force contractors to do anything. Public authorities must ensure that records of contractors are managed in accordance with their records management plans. Approval of those rests with the keeper, who can refuse to approve them. The answer is partnership between the authorities, voluntary sector providers and the keeper. That dialogue is already under way.
The detail in plans is for each authority to determine, but I expect there to be a great deal of convergence. It simply would not be efficient for every authority to develop its own plan, and the keeper will emphasise that in the guidance. The bill allows for common plans, which may be appropriate where authorities’ work is similar. Work is already under way to draw up generic retention schedules, for example. The Government’s role is to facilitate dialogue between COSLA and the voluntary sector to ensure that a commonsense approach that is based on best practice is taken.
Issues relating to confidentiality and access have been raised. Let me be clear: the bill is not about freedom of information by the back door. It is entirely silent on access, which is dealt with in other legislation, and it does not interfere with confidentiality in any way.
If authorities already have good records systems in place—as many do—costs will be minimal. That has already been recognised by records professionals working in local authorities, who support our proposals. However, there is scope for sharing and pooling resources. Records management is an ideal area for imaginative co-operation and joint working between authorities. There is a cost in not making improvements. Keeping too many records for too long is a needless waste of resources.
We will continue to engage on the bill with sectors and organisations. The dialogue to date has been positive, and it is continuing.
Records are not just boring data; they are memories of people and what has happened to them—they are the only memories for some people—and they need to be managed properly.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Public Records (Scotland) Bill.
I call Karen Whitefield to speak on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee.
14:48
I thank everybody who gave written and oral evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, and the committee clerks, whose help and support was, as ever, invaluable.
To help us to understand what the bill is intended to achieve, I will give a working definition of what is meant by public records in the context of the bill and a brief description of the circumstances out of which the bill arose.
For the purpose of the bill, public records are any information that is generated by a public authority in carrying out its functions or by any organisation or individual that is contracted to do so on behalf of a public authority. However, it is important to note that, as well as applying to record keeping relating to children and vulnerable adults who are engaged with health and local authorities, the bill pertains to records management across the voluntary sector and to any other organisations that benefit from public funding.
The bill originated from the historical abuse systemic review, which uncovered significant failings in records management in residential schools and children’s homes in Scotland. Indeed, Tom Shaw gave some of the most compelling evidence to the committee during our stage 1 deliberations. The primary intent of the bill is to introduce measures to combat those failings and to improve record keeping across the public sector in Scotland, and the committee supports those aims.
I will now outline the key provisions of the bill. First, all public authorities must draft and adhere to a records management plan, which must be approved by the keeper, who will produce guidance to support that process. To ensure consistency and minimise unnecessary work, similar types of public authority may adhere to a common RMP. In addition, the bill will empower the keeper to undertake compliance reviews to ensure that the legislation is adhered to and will enable them to issue warning notices to authorities that fail to comply. In the event that such notices go unheeded, the keeper will be able to publicise the failings of those authorities that are non-compliant.
Some of the organisations that gave evidence to the committee were vigorously opposed to records management plans backed by legislation. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council questioned the need for new legislation and called the bill “a heavy-handed response”. It said:
“with the exception of ... looked-after children ... we could find no compelling evidence ... of a breakdown or failure in record-keeping across the public sector that warrants the introduction of a new regulatory framework”.
National Museums Scotland contended that the bill should not apply to such a wide range of organisations. It said:
“We find it difficult to see why National Museums Scotland should be included on the list of named organisations and be expected to follow the same regulatory regime as organisations which are responsible for very sensitive personal records”.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations pointed out that the bill
“has the potential to cast a very wide net across our sector that tangles us all up in a resource intensive bureaucracy”.
However, the minister did her very best to respond to those concerns when she appeared before the committee. She pointed out that records management plans would not be rigid but would be tailored to meet the needs of each sector; that the bill would be light touch as opposed to heavy handed; and that steps would be taken to minimise the administrative burden that is placed on public authorities and external contractors. In addition, she assured the committee that when external contractors did the same job for several public authorities, only one records management plan would be required. I know that some voluntary sector organisations still have concerns about that, although I appreciate that there has been helpful dialogue this week between those organisations and the minister’s officials. I urge her to continue that dialogue.
The committee believes that the bill must be accompanied by guidance to ensure good practice across the public sector, and that it will have to be nuanced to suit the needs of different organisations. It is hoped that rather than adding to the volume of records that are currently kept, the bill will ensure that records are managed appropriately, but the committee agrees that there is a danger that some public authorities or external contractors may apply RMPs with excessive zeal to avoid the risk of falling foul of the legislation. I hope that the minister will guard against that.
The committee recognises that the concerns of the voluntary sector have not been fully addressed. Many voluntary organisations are already overstretched, and it is vital that the bill does not add unnecessary weight to their administrative burdens. The Scottish Government must work to address those concerns at stage 2, and I am confident that the minister will do that, because during stage 1 she has made genuine efforts to engage with the committee to ensure that steps are taken to avoid overly rigorous interpretation and implementation of the bill.
As far as the financial implications are concerned, although at this stage there is insufficient evidence on the cost of the bill, the Scottish Council on Archives believes that the task of drafting a records management plan will not be onerous, and it is generally agreed that implementation of the bill is unlikely to incur great expense.
The committee believes that the historical abuse systemic review revealed shortcomings in record keeping and records management in the care sector, and that urgent action is needed to address them. Furthermore, it strongly believes that all organisations that receive public money have an obligation to keep their records responsibly. I am sure that every member agrees that that is especially the case when those organisations deal with documents that are sensitive and/or of great emotional or practical value. It is imperative that such records are properly maintained and accessible to the people to whom they relate.
Although the committee acknowledges that not all the concerns that were raised during stage 1 have been fully addressed, we are satisfied that the bill is necessary. As the committee heard from the National Archives of Scotland:
“Good records management is not free, but it is cheaper than bad records management or no records management.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 8 December 2010; c 4453.]
On that basis, the committee recommends that the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill.
14:55
I do not know whether members are familiar with the film “Diner”. It is a great film, and one of the best scenes involves a young man called Shrevie, who is newly married to his childhood sweetheart. The couple are having their first experience of marital discord: an argument has broken out over Shrevie’s record collection, which is alphabetised and broken down by genre—rhythm and blues, jazz, rock and roll, and so on. I am talking about vinyl records, which is what some of us were brought up with—
What is vinyl?
I said, “some of us”.
Shrevie loses his temper because his wife has put his Charlie Parker album back under “R and B” rather than “Jazz”. She retorts, “I only wanted to play the thing.” The trouble with the scene is that I think that we are supposed to identify with the wife, but I identify with Shrevie, because I like to keep my records alphabetised and categorised by genre. I think that that appeals to the pencil-sharpening retentive side of me.
That is rather a long-winded way of saying that many members, including me, welcome and are attracted to the bill and the whole notion of meticulous and well-ordered record keeping. I would not describe myself as an historian, but I certainly know the value of good historical records.
The bill is relatively simple and straightforward. It seeks to improve the management of records in certain public authorities by requiring them to produce a records management plan. It will empower the keeper of the records of Scotland to draw up a model RMP and to monitor compliance with the new duty. On the face of it, the bill does not appear to be overly onerous. The keeper’s only power of enforcement relates to failure to maintain records to the expected standard, and the penalty is the naming and shaming of the defaulting authority.
Members will correct me if I am wrong about this, but I think that every member of the committee and all the witnesses who gave evidence thought that it was a good idea to try to improve standards of record keeping. Nobody disagreed with the intent or policy objectives of the bill. However, despite the apparent consensus, the question that the committee faced was whether we need the bill at all. The Parliament must now face the same issue.
As members know, the voluntary sector and local authorities, represented by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in particular, were perhaps the most animated in their concern about and opposition to the bill. Members have talked about some of the concerns, and I will consider what the Parliament and the minister can do to address them at stage 2. The concerns focused on three areas: the unnecessary bureaucracy that the bill might bring; the proportionality of the duties that the bill will impose to the risk that is posed by poor records management; and the lack of certainty about costs, and the priority that we should give to that at a time of painful budget cuts.
We all agreed with the bill’s intent and policy objectives, but if the objectives can be achieved without legislating and without introducing a gold-plated record-keeping system, surely we should go down the voluntary route. In some ways, I was surprised that the committee unanimously agreed that there is a need to legislate on records management. One of the strongest arguments that was put during the committee’s recent discussions on the Autism (Scotland) Bill was that there is no need to legislate at all times, particularly when alternative routes such as guidance or partnership working—the concordat approach—can be pursued and will achieve the same policy objectives.
In any event, members of all parties agreed and indicated our support for the bill. The most persuasive evidence that led us to that conclusion came from Tom Shaw, who carried out the review of historical abuse in residential child care, and from Lorna Patterson, on behalf of the in care survivors service Scotland. Indeed, Mr Shaw’s report and conclusions about the consequences of failing to keep appropriate records in residential schools and homes were the key drivers for the legislation. To this day, survivors of abuse continue to suffer because of the difficulty that they have in finding out about their own lives and childhoods through memories and records that most of us take for granted and certainly would not discard carelessly. The fact that many of the children’s homes were run by voluntary organisations was also a factor in the committee’s thinking.
Therefore, although we have real concerns about the way in which the bill might be implemented and its lack of proportionality when it comes to records that contain little sensitive or personal information, we support the bill, not only because we do not wish to see a repeat of the trauma that has been experienced by those who have survived abuse in children’s homes but because most members of the committee thought that it was important for accountability and the good management of our public services. The decision is finely balanced, but I believe that we should go down the legislative route while asking the Government to address the genuine and clear concerns of the many organisations involved.
15:00
I have always been attracted to the view that journalism is the first draft of history. The historian’s craft is, of course, the superior one, given the journalistic distortions and spin that the historian must navigate in coming to a balanced version of events. However, both crafts undoubtedly echo the Inuit view that to know where one is going, one must first know where one comes from. Judging from the surge of interest in our forebears, with any number of television shows helping us to “Meet the Ancestors” and family tree advice available on all manner of websites, more and more of us are fascinated about where we came from.
It is, though, not just to feed the fascination with our roots that it is important that accurate records are kept and managed. As the minister indicated, the genesis of the Public Records (Scotland) Bill lies in the report into institutional child abuse in residential schools and children’s homes in Scotland. Clearly, there was a feeling that vulnerable people had been let down by the inadequacy of the records that were held, and the keeper of the records of Scotland conducted a review of public records legislation. As a result of that review, the keeper recommended limited legislation to improve record keeping across the public sector, which would
“improve accountability, increase transparency and strengthen governance”.
Behind those words lay much hurt and frustration on the part of those who had attempted to find out basic information about their own backgrounds.
Even before freedom of information legislation, it was obvious that record keeping in Scotland was not all that it might be. I remember, in a previous incarnation, finding it remarkable that there was no publicly available register detailing who actually owned the land of Scotland. Thousands of acres were being bought by and sold to trusts and purchasers hiding behind shell companies, yet there was no mechanism whereby the public could find out who owned what. The records were incomplete, to say the least.
In 1977 a retired forester called John McEwen published a painstakingly researched book called “Who Owns Scotland?”. It was a partial lifting of the veil, but many of the records still remained hidden. Andy Wightman updated McEwen’s work in 1996, but again admitted to huge gaps in the records. To this day, there is no complete transparency about who owns much of Scotland. For those who wonder about the apparent lack of urgency in introducing legislation to publicise those records, I recommend Andy Wightman’s Iatest explanatory tome, which is entitled “The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland (And How They Got It)”.
As the keeper of the records rightly states:
“freedom of information ... crucially depends on the quality of records.”
Although the bill is largely technical, and concentrates on issues such as records management and transferring court records to the keeper, it is no less welcome for that. The Public Records (Scotland) Bill is not about which records should be held and which discarded—there is a much bigger debate to be had about that undoubtedly controversial subject. However, I accept that there is a genuine fear, particularly in the voluntary sector, that an overzealous approach to record keeping might overwhelm the limited administrative resources that those organisations can call on. We do not need to take a sledgehammer to crack what might be a fairly fragile nut where those smaller institutions are concerned.
I have read COSLA’s briefing on today’s debate, which claims that, for some bodies, it will cost up to an additional £60,000 a year to implement the legislation. I agree with COSLA that the key to improvement will be the sharing of good practice among all stakeholders, especially smaller voluntary organisations. In these straitened times, however, it is gratifying that this technical bill will result in no additional burdens on the public purse, which is as it should be.
I believe that the bill, like the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which we passed in Parliament a few weeks ago, may well be the precursor to a more important piece of legislation that grapples with the fundamental questions as to which records should be kept and, perhaps more important, which should be made publicly available. Nevertheless, the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill.
15:05
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm to members that I am not Margaret Smith and therefore was not on the committee. I apologise for Margaret Smith not being here today. She is unwell.
Having looked at the detail of the report—somewhat quickly, I have to say—I believe that foremost in our minds when considering it should be what prompted it, which, as members have said, was the review that was undertaken by Tom Shaw. His 2007 report made three sets of recommendations. I understand that, today, we are considering the third of those, on the procedures for the retention of records. As we deal with the bill—which, as Ted Brocklebank has just said, is concerned with a largely technical matter—we must always keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that that the issue has a real human dimension for many people.
I have looked through the committee’s report on the bill, and it is clear that the committee heard from a wide range of groups, most of which supported the bill. However, there was a clear divide over whether what is proposed is heavy handed and whether, as Ken Macintosh suggested, something more voluntary might be more suitable.
The Liberal Democrats are inclined to side with the Scottish Council on Archives, which argued that
“ensuring consistency in on-going records management requires a legal framework”.
Gerry Slater of the SCA highlighted to the committee that a voluntary scheme could be problematic. He likened a voluntary scheme to new year’s resolutions and said:
“we all start off with genuine enthusiasm and then gradually, as other things emerge, the enthusiasm wanes.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 12 January 2011; c 4505.]
We share that opinion, as, I understand, does Tom Shaw, who also favours legislation over a voluntary scheme.
We must return to the genesis of the bill, which was a response to systematic abuse in residential schools and children’s homes. We believe that it is a reasonable response. We believe also that, in the most plain terms, it is good governance.
There have been objections to the bill, including many from the voluntary sector, as some organisations are understandably concerned about the unintended consequences that the legislation will have for their work.
Concerns were put to the committee about the cost of the proposals for organisations—other members have spoken about the uncertainty in that regard. However, as the committee’s report says, local and public authorities that already have a credible system in place will see a minimal impact in terms of costs, and maybe those that do not have a system should have had one, and might be incentivised to produce one.
Ultimately, Liberal Democrats believe that Parliament will agree that there is a need to ensure that there is effective records management in relation to vulnerable people. The historical abuse systemic review report made for uncomfortable reading, and today we go some small way towards rectifying systemic problems. As parliamentarians, we have to consider whether the bill is a proportionate response to those findings. We believe that it is. Although some administrative burdens might be placed upon some organisations, I am reassured by what the minister has said about the Scottish Government’s willingness to work with public authorities and contractors to resolves issues such as overimplementation and to ensure that implementation remains the responsibility of public authorities.
Public organisations in Scotland have a clear moral obligation to ensure that records are kept to the highest possible standard. Consequently, we will support the bill at stage 1.
15:09
Despite its unprepossessing name and content that will never make a newspaper editor hold the front page, the Public Records (Scotland) Bill is, for good reasons that other members have alluded to, deeply important to the lives of many people in Scotland.
As we know, the Shaw report into historical failures—and much worse—in some of Scotland’s children’s homes was very clear on that point. Failure to maintain adequate records meant that a generation of our most vulnerable children were failed, and failed for the rest of their lives, by the hopeless record keeping of many institutions in the past. As the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard in distressing evidence, that meant that many people who were formerly in the care of such institutions were, in later life, completely unable to piece together the stories of their lives, their family origins or the reasons why they ended up in care, far less to be in an adequate position to investigate any failures or abuse that may have occurred in many cases. From that evidence, the committee concluded that we have a
“strong moral obligation to manage personal records effectively.”
Although those very unhappy stories provided the springboard for the bill, the legislation takes the opportunity to impose standards of record keeping across a wide range of authorities. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee took evidence on the bill and we were convinced, despite the misgivings of some witnesses, that it provides a proportionate solution.
Part 1 of the bill will require the production and implementation of a records management plan, to be approved by the keeper of the records of Scotland, by named Scottish public authorities. As other members have said, the keeper will design a model records management plan, with best practice advice and supplementary guidance, to deliver to authorities. The bill will further guarantee the keeper the ability to carry out compliance reviews of the plan’s implementation by authorities. The keeper may also issue warning notices and take related measures to ensure that the management plan’s provisions are being observed. During evidence, the keeper concluded that, from the review, an understanding had been gained that there were widespread inconsistent record-keeping practices throughout Scotland.
The Scottish Information Commissioner stated during his evidence that, under current record-keeping regimes, finding many records is like
“looking for a needle in a haystack.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee,12 January 2011; c 4504.]
He made it clear that many organisations, not least some of Scotland’s local authorities, could make very significant improvements in their record-keeping practices.
Other witnesses were of the view that the schedule of the bill is perhaps disproportionate and covers too broad a range of organisations, and they offered the view that there should be a differentiation between high risk and low risk records management. The General Teaching Council for Scotland, for instance, argued that the bill will place significant burdens on public authorities and questioned whether the bill will deliver appropriate compliance that would be proportionate to the costs.
However, others persuaded the committee of the position that organisations should keep accurate records no matter how small in scale and scope, and that organisations that keep reasonable records have little to fear from the legislation. Having said all that, I welcome the minister’s indication that at stage 2 she is willing to return to some of those concerns and to engage with them.
The bill requires the public authorities that are listed in the schedule of the bill to
“produce, implement and review records management plans.”
Once the public authority has developed a records management plan, it must be approved by the keeper of the records of Scotland. The bill aims to ensure that records are organised and easily accessible for public review.
The plan describes the arrangement of records not only by the authority but by contractors who carry out any function of the authority. That point is central to the scheme that is set out in the bill and it is why contractors’ records are to be included in an authority’s records management plan. Although the committee wants to be reassured that that will not impose new and unreasonable burdens, it was again broadly persuaded of the need for that aspect of the bill.
The bill’s financial memorandum states that bodies that have credible records management plans will likely face only minimal costs as a result of the legislation, which also seems to committee members to be broadly credible.
The Public Records (Scotland) Bill has been deemed important because it holds public authorities accountable for the storage of information, which is often information on individuals. I hope that a reform of the public records system will ensure that significant public records are no longer filed away in unmarked boxes in lock-up storage centres, put in skips or given away to random passers-by, as happened in the worst examples that were brought to the committee’s attention.
Good records management will, as has been stressed throughout the process, give much clearer guidance to authorities on what can be thrown out and, indeed, on what must be thrown out if records are to be kept in an intelligible form. I hope that the bill will achieve not only the end of protecting Scotland’s children, but of a much wider reform that will allow sensible and proportionate record keeping by all of Scotland’s public authorities. In that spirit, I urge the Parliament to support the principles of the bill.
15:15
First, I apologise for missing much of the minister’s opening speech.
We all recognise the importance of reforming Scotland’s public records system in public authorities as well as in the private and voluntary sectors that work with them. Although it is recognised that public record keeping has, in many cases, significantly improved since the Shaw report—which revealed the truly dreadful record keeping in residential schools and children’s homes, with records scattered across organisations, archives and even countries—there is still a clear need for legislation. The evidence that the committee heard made clear the terrible consequences of poor record keeping for children and young people in the care sector. As a guard against that set of circumstances happening again, the legislation is to be welcomed.
The committee supported the view that a scheme that is underpinned by statute is more likely than a voluntary scheme to secure the necessary changes, and would lock in those changes. However, some concerns have been expressed regarding overimplementation of the legislation. Witnesses drew parallels with child protection measures that they suggested are treated at times with such caution that unnecessary measures are taken.
We must therefore be wary of misinterpretation of the legislation and we must be cautious about the risk of overburdening the voluntary sector, on which the legislation will impact. I understand that that is not the minister’s intention, but I think that we would all welcome assurances on how that will be avoided. Witnesses spoke of a gap between the understanding of the legislation by the responsible public authority and that of the individual who interprets the legislation at the point of delivery.
The minister will be familiar with the voluntary sector organisation’s continuing concerns regarding the obligation that will be placed on them as contractors. As a former policy officer at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, I have worked closely with the voluntary sector and have continued that relationship with local groups in my region. When introducing new legislation that impacts on the voluntary sector, we must be aware of the diversity of organisations and recognise the flexibility and responsiveness that they offer, and we must foster their development while ensuring that they operate within a framework that meets our legitimate expectations on public care and delivery.
That is an important point, whether the duty for public delivery and public functions lies with the local authority, the health service or others. If we are moving into an area of public service reform in which we can ensure that the best providers can provide the best services—which in many cases will be from the voluntary sector—it is important that we have a robust system that is accountable and in which there is proper record keeping. There is therefore in the bill a responsibility and an opportunity for the voluntary sector, so the sector should not just be defensive about being overburdened with activity. We need to get that balance right and to be proportionate.
I do not disagree with anything that the minister just stated. It is important that we recognise that the voluntary sector—the third sector—will play an increasing role in service delivery. However, we must ensure that we achieve the right balance. I think that the sector recognises that the bill is important and it wants to work with it, but it perhaps needs help and support with regard to how the eventual act will be implemented.
Although the sector has raised concerns regarding implementation, I am confident that it will—as it always does—engage with the process and do all that it can to make it work. However, the bill’s timescales have been challenging, and there are concerns that there is little awareness of it. Given the tight timescales that we are all working to, there may be a case for introducing an order-making power to the bill. I would welcome the minister’s thoughts on that.
In evidence, it was made clear that contractors are nervous about the risk of significantly varying records management plans, and they highlighted the fact that many third sector organisations contract with several local authorities. Local authorities also made it clear that they would pass that burden on to contractors. There remains uncertainty over whether a public authority would accept a contractor’s own record-keeping system or whether they would be expected to conform to a system that has been defined by the public authority. Much of that will be contained in guidance, and while we will have to wait for the detail on that and take much of the minister’s assurances on faith, it might be helpful to have consultation and co-operation with stakeholders in preparing plans and guidance documents—that was also raised by COSLA today—as well as guidance that deals specifically with the relationship between RMPs and contractors.
Finally, despite the keeper’s assurances to the committee, the voluntary sector is still concerned about the definition of public record, which again comes down to the gap between the understanding of the legislation at local authority level and its implementation on the ground. If changes are to be introduced smoothly and effectively, such issues will have to be resolved, so I believe that help and support for implementation will be welcomed.
All of us, including the third sector, should be able to approach the legislation with a commitment to improving service delivery and with the confidence that it will deliver on the crucial need for Scotland’s record keeping to be of the very highest order.
15:20
I very much welcome today’s debate and the fact that we can all agree on the bill’s principles. It is clear that the legislation on public records, as set out in the 70-year-old public records legislation, needs to be updated. Although the subject might seem to be as dry as dust, I assure the chamber that it is not so to the many thousands of people whose emotional or physical wellbeing depends on records, often from long ago, being assembled correctly and comprehensively, and being easily and speedily accessible.
Over time, all organisations, large and small, create a considerable amount of information that needs to be managed responsibly if they are to meet statutory requirements. That is particularly the case for health services, which often need to consider data protection issues. The bill will ensure a consistent set of standards across the entire public sector, while still allowing authorities the independence to develop and manage their own records systems. As the evidence indicates, there are major inconsistencies in the public sector, with some bodies failing to provide acceptable levels of records management. Indeed, Tom Shaw made it clear in his evidence that it is vital that we change the culture and ensure that those who make records recognise that the process is a lot more than a bureaucratic chore. In the case of looked-after children, for example, it is an effective way of recording individuals’ life experiences. To that end, the Shaw report was indeed compelling, and it made clear the need for Scotland to have a system in which historical records are not only preserved but are easily accessible, in order to prevent the mistakes of the past.
Although the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 addressed the issue that was identified by Mr Shaw—that case records about children in care were not kept for the right periods of time—they did not deal with the records that document the services. Under the bill, all public authorities will need to be accountable and ensure that governance procedures are adequately followed. That move will close a gap and place greater importance on the way in which organisations make their decisions.
Some organisations, particularly those in the voluntary sector, have expressed concern that the bill will place a considerable burden on their work, so I am glad that in her opening speech the minister was able to reassure them by reaffirming that the bill’s purpose is not to create more records or to determine their content or form. Instead, it will guarantee management of records, which in any case is a process in which organisations should already be engaged. Moreover, authorities will receive support from the keeper of the records of Scotland, who will provide advice and guidance on all aspects of records management. Small organisations will find that existing staff—often volunteers—will be able to carry out the tasks after some minimal training, and that there will be no obligation to employ additional staff.
I would also like to mention the importance of authorities working together. As the minister pointed out, work is under way on drawing up generic retention schedules with a view to promoting best practice. I welcome that. After all, it would not make sense for each authority to reinvent the wheel when certain organisations have undertaken the practice for years and have developed efficient records management systems. Furthermore, an efficient form of records management is undoubtedly an important business function that can bring long-term cost benefits to any organisation.
One issue of concern that was expressed by Mr Shaw, and which is not directly covered in the bill but will nevertheless be the responsibility of the keeper of the records and the relevant records management plan, is the length of time that records can be stored before being destroyed. As a general practitioner, I was surprised at being approached by hospital consultants and asked to search my patients' notes for details of treatments, procedures and tests that they or their colleagues had initiated in the hospital, because the hospital records had been destroyed. It is undoubtedly expensive to keep records for a long time, but care must be taken not to destroy them prematurely, which might mean storing them for many decades.
As I have said, however, I welcome the fact that we all agree on the principles of the bill and I commend them to Parliament.
15:25
I congratulate Fiona Hyslop on bringing the Public Records (Scotland) Bill to Parliament. All of us have been made well aware of the fact that the bill was inspired by the Shaw report of 2007 into historical child abuse in residential and children’s homes. Those events were not alone—they were mirrored by events in Ireland and north Wales, which resulted in the Ryan report of 2009 on institutional child abuse in Ireland from the 1930s to the 1990s, and the Waterhouse report of 2000 on north Wales in the 1970s and 1980s.
In its recommendations to the Scottish Government, which were based on the Shaw report, the National Archives of Scotland highlighted the unfitness for purpose of the existing ways of keeping archives. The bill sets out to provide a framework for keeping public records by requiring public authorities to develop records management plans and to implement them under the supervision of, and with the approval of, the keeper of the records of Scotland.
If effective record keeping is made compulsory by law, earlier shortcomings can be avoided in the future and we can, in a sense, be future proofed. My late good friend Iain Maciver of the National Library of Scotland was thrilled to discover that I was still the owner of a double-disk-drive Commodore green-screen computer, because the library had a lot of 5.5in diskettes that could not be read. He asked me to give the computer to the library, which would be delighted to have it. I hope that, when looking at this issue, we will not discover some technological dinosaurs down in the cellar, with the requirement that another dinosaur be found to hatch the eggs.
The bill goes beyond the scope of the Shaw report. There are other areas in which I imagine it will have positive effects. Consider the piece of instant archaeology that occurred on Princes Street during the period of tramline construction there. All sorts of things—not just one, but two tramway systems—were discovered under the tarmac at that point. The former TIE chairman, David Mackay, referred at the time to
“cables not being where they’re supposed to be”,
which is the equivalent in modern transport technology of
“there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships”,
as was famously said at the time of the battle of Jutland. We require management plans to ensure that essential utility locations are recorded with accuracy for future infrastructure projects. That would be welcome. Closer to home, just outside this building, the test drillings around Holyrood in May 2009 to collocate utility pipes and cables, ahead of the installation of our much-loved anti-terror bollards—one has to get that right—provide evidence that records were not properly kept even in the few years following the building of the Parliament.
I am convinced that the bill has the potential to reduce numerous instances of individual suffering and financial detriment. In principle, I approve of its applying not only to public bodies but to contractors—but with one caveat, which Claire Baker has already voiced. As the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations pointed out, the bill could result in an increased workload for people whose prime concern is not to make notes but to offer assistance, comfort and tender loving care to people who are in their charge. As someone who is responsible for two 92 or 93-year-old parents, I am terribly grateful to the carers who come round. Sometimes having to write out what care they have given is a bit of a burden at the end of a heavy working day, so we ought to be humane when working out what we require of people.
We ought also to correspond to some extent with similar organisations in the other countries where reports have been published—Ireland and Wales—to find out whether they have come across instances of best practice or things to avoid in their study of the archiving of such evidence.
Keeping accurate, detailed and long-term records is crucial, most of all to ensure that vulnerable individuals have access to information about themselves. What emerges ought to be easy to access by people who have never before been confronted with such material.
15:30
I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Harvie’s speech, which gave us another insight into record keeping, so I thank him for it.
As members have said, the bill is the legacy of the historical abuse systemic review, and I fully support the aims of the bill in that regard. I in no way want to dilute or take anything away from the bill but, like Ted Brocklebank, I believe that the bill could be a precursor to legislation on other matters.
I want to raise the issue of common good funds, on which the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee took evidence. Paragraph 79 on page 16 of the committee’s stage 1 report states:
“The Committee received a small number of submissions suggesting that the Bill offered an opportunity for Scottish Ministers to legislate to provide for the establishment of a common good asset register.”
That mentions “a small number” but, at a meeting that I attended in Glasgow city chambers, a large number of community council representatives—about 200—were present from throughout the region. On all their lips was the point that they cannot find out anywhere exactly what common good assets their councils have or which assets have been disposed of. There was overwhelming anger at that meeting regarding common good funds and the lack of accountability or information on common good assets.
It is not only community councillors and members of the public who are saying that; members of all parties have raised the issue in the Parliament. I have raised it, as has Robert Brown of the Lib Dems. Mary Scanlon has raised it on numerous occasions. Her most recent contribution was to ask about guidance that has been issued to local authorities on common good records and funds. The answer that she received from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth stated:
“the Scottish Government wrote to all local authorities in 2007 to remind them of their responsibilities under accounting codes of practice, best value guidance grant conditions and statute in respect of their management of common good funds and assets.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 12 February 2010; S3W-31278.]
Even today, people still do not know what assets are held and what has been disposed of.
Paragraph 83 of the committee’s report states that the bill is not the proper place to deal with common good funds, but it also states:
“The Committee would expect, however, that local authorities’ RMPs established under the Bill would include information on how existing records relating to common good assets were to be managed.”
I ask the minister to consider that recommendation. Do ministers intend, as part of the process of the bill, to issue further guidance or even to monitor the RMPs that are established under the bill, in relation to common good funds and assets that are held by local authorities?
I have received a huge list of the assets that local authorities have declared, although they do not have to declare them. It is amazing—it includes streets, shops and bailies’ chains. Every year in Glasgow, we have a pensioners Christmas party, which is paid for out of the common good fund. I found that out only because I asked, but most people do not know that. It might be simple, but the public want to know exactly what common good assets their councils hold, what they have disposed of and how much money is held in common good funds.
I do not want to dilute the bill in any way and I fully support what it stands for. However, I want to put down a marker regarding common good funds. We need legislation on a register, either through amendments to the bill—although I do not think that that will be possible—or through future legislation.
15:34
I will be brief. The bill is important and—I hope—a step towards resolving some of the long-standing social and personal issues that individuals who were subjected to abuse in residential homes or schools suffered. Perhaps our taking a step forward with the bill will go some way towards bringing those individuals some closure. Of course, as other members have said, that abuse was the genesis of the bill.
Professor Harvie widened out the debate a bit—and rightly so—as did Ted Brocklebank. They spoke of more general matters around record keeping and how records are kept in this country. As more and more public records have come into the public domain and have become more readily accessible over the years, the huge gaps in record keeping have become increasingly apparent, particularly if one watches genealogy programmes or whatever. The general point is this: the need to keep records is critical; they must be kept in a consistent and appropriate manner.
In a former existence, I worked for a charitable organisation. In many ways, its records were exceptionally good. What was particularly good about those records was that they were available for the children and grandchildren of the people who had been looked after, and yet the children and grandchildren knew nothing about them. They had access to the records of an individual in their family that told the story of their family’s life. In the more general scheme of things, it is important that everyone is given that opportunity. All those who are involved in record keeping have to ensure that their records are maintained to the same professional standard.
We will support the bill at stage 1. I look forward to hearing the minister’s comments on some of the more informed contributions that committee members made.
15:36
It is only a few weeks since the Parliament passed the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, at which time the view in the chamber on the importance of preserving and enhancing the very precious fabric of the nation’s heritage was unanimous. During that debate, there was considerable discussion on the need to ensure that we preserve all that is best for future generations; so too is that the central principle behind the bill that we debate this afternoon.
Good-quality and accessible public records and archives are an essential part of improving the welfare of society in general, if not also the democracy about which Sandra White spoke in her reference to common good funds. If I may be allowed to say so, she made a very good point in that regard. It is fair to say that records can make a life-changing difference to individuals and families; that point was made forcibly to the committee on several occasions.
While the main driving force for the bill was the very unsatisfactory circumstances that affected many of our most vulnerable people, particularly those whose cases were flagged up by the historic abuse systemic review, there are other important reasons why we must do something to improve things. I refer in particular to the need to create greater efficiency, spread good practice and keep costs to a minimum. No one doubts the need to do that if we are to ensure more of a level playing field across the country and if we are to avoid the gaps in our knowledge that poor record keeping—or, indeed, in some cases, no record keeping—can bring about. I think that we all accept that organisations that receive public money have an obligation to ensure that records are kept properly and that they are accessible and transparent.
That said, there is still a debate to be had on striking the right balance between ensuring greater efficiency and not imposing too much of a regulatory burden on bodies and including more of them under the wider net of officialdom. As the minister rightly said, we need to keep the debate in perspective. We need to remember that the debate is on how to improve the management of records, not on what records are, or are not, included under the remit of public bodies. The latter debate might, understandably, arouse even more controversy.
I heard the exchanges about the voluntary sector, in particular the exchange between the minister and Claire Baker. I, too, have concerns about the voluntary sector. These are organisations without which Scotland would be a much poorer place, particularly when it comes to looking after our most vulnerable people. I fully understand what the minister said on the subject, and I am grateful to her for her reassurances, but we must take on board the fact that the voluntary sector does so much for Scotland; it serves the country very well. At the moment, the voluntary sector is under not only huge financial pressure, but legislative pressure. We must take cognisance of the pressures that the sector is under. It would be a great pity if some people felt obliged to move away from the voluntary sector because of those burdens.
My biggest concern was about the evidence from some voluntary sector groups that they could find no compelling evidence of a major issue with their existing processes and that the new legislative framework could be not only unnecessary but burdensome and time consuming for staff who have many other tasks to do, particularly when budgets are tight, which applies not just in a recession. Those concerns raised serious issues for me, which the minister has given an assurance will be addressed at stage 2.
Linked to that is the genuine concern, which some members have mentioned, about a tendency to overimplement the bill, because of the mindset these days that we must do that. I would be concerned if workloads increased as a result, so it was good to hear the minister’s reassurance on that.
Everyone is sympathetic to the former residents of children’s homes and special schools and to their families, who have had immense difficulty in accessing the records that they require. We appreciate the emotional issues that have resulted from sometimes harrowing experiences. It is clear that those difficulties present a strong case for change and for addressing many of the inconsistencies in records management across Scotland, but it is vital that we as parliamentarians scrutinise properly all the effects of making the process legislative rather than voluntary. We are happy to support the bill’s principles.
15:41
In my opening speech, I suggested that the bill involved three main areas of contention, all of which have been touched on. They are questions about costs and priorities; the amount of bureaucracy in implementing the bill; and the need to approach risk proportionately.
On costs and priorities, as Karen Whitefield and the minister said, many organisations have good records management systems in place and will not be unduly affected by the bill. However, it is clear that practice is inconsistent across Scotland, hence the bill’s introduction.
Ted Brocklebank highlighted COSLA’s estimate that some organisations could face costs of up to £60,000 each to implement the bill.
That is possibly a misunderstanding. In the background to the bill, £60,000 is the cost to the keeper and the public expense that will accrue to the Scottish Government. We are not saying that expense will not be incurred if organisations have to employ new people, but many organisations already employ people who will be able to undertake the functions. Perhaps the position has been misunderstood; I just wanted to clarify it.
I welcome the minister’s comments. The point is that people lack certainty and that additional cost might be incurred by some organisations and particularly by voluntary organisations that have few resources. When the voluntary sector and public authorities are losing staff and cutting services, do we really want to divert resources away from front-line services to improving record keeping?
The committee heard the alternative argument that good records management can be cost-effective and can save money in the long term. However, we should be in no doubt that, if we decide to make good records management a legislative requirement, we will give it a priority among the many other duties that are expected of local authorities and voluntary organisations. By definition, that will have some impact on the services that they provide.
The voluntary sector’s concern about bureaucracy was a point well made in its evidence. Many voluntary organisations work in multiple local authority areas. Their concern is that those councils will offload all their responsibilities on their contractors. Voluntary sector organisations will face multiple records management plans in each local authority area in which they work. An organisation such as Barnardo’s already has a thorough and reliable records management system—it takes that duty seriously. Instead of having one centralised, effective, efficient and credible RMP, it could end up with 32 RMPs. Barnardo’s gave a couple of examples in relation to that in its written evidence, which said:
“A clear example of the result of not giving a common model was in the development of single shared assessments by local authorities several years ago ... The result was that every authority interpreted the guidance differently and produced quite different assessment documents and processes ... in some authorities multiple versions of the single shared assessment existed within care groups.”
That is a potential problem, although it can be tackled. It involves not just consultation but genuine engagement between Government, the keeper of the records, public authorities and the voluntary sector.
I wish to expand on that point about the need for genuine engagement, rather than just consultation. COSLA has made a number of recommendations, of which I will highlight two in particular. COSLA said:
“the Keeper should be required to go further than hold ‘consultations’ or consult on guidance and other related issues. More constructive outcomes will be achieved if the Keeper ‘engages with and has regard to’ stakeholders - the process of engagement is key”.
COSLA further suggested:
“it is not appropriate for the Keeper to require groups of authorities to have a common plan. This top-down approach undermines local autonomy and decision-making ... It is COSLA’s strong view that the legislation should remain enabling rather than giving the Keeper powers to require groups of authorities to have a common plan with all the ... unintended consequences which that would bring.”
I would welcome the minister’s comments on both those recommendations. Clearly, they could lead to amendments, and I would like to hear the minister’s views before we reach stage 2.
The matter of risk and proportionality was well covered at committee. The SCVO addressed the issue in its written evidence. It stated:
“There is an apparent lack of proportionality and no mechanism to relate the new system to levels of risk – while the original issue of poor record keeping related to looked after children, the solution is now to cover any and all public functions, and any voluntary sector organisation that is performing the functions of a public authority.”
Karen Indoo gave a particularly good example in her evidence to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. She said:
“In our organisation and others that I have worked with in the care sector over the years, professionals would become focused on ensuring that they are keeping those records appropriately. I can see the potential for front-line staff to be spending more and more time ensuring that they are meeting all the various requirements of the records management policies, and less and less time doing direct work. That would lead to poorer outcomes for the vulnerable people to which the care sector is providing services, rather than improving outcomes”.—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 12 January 2011; c 4520.]
It is important to make a distinction here, in that the bill would not determine the content of what is kept. In the situation that Ken Macintosh has just described, the question of what is kept, and the ability of people to maintain their efforts in front-line services and in providing the care services, would be determined by the health or care, or other, professionals, not by what is in the records management plan.
Indeed. I appreciate that—the minister gave that assurance at committee—but the point that Karen Indoo and several people in the voluntary sector have made is that the focus of an organisation will be on keeping whatever is demanded of them, rather than on providing the service. They will be more concerned with keeping a record, so that they are accountable for it, rather than delivering the service.
There is also a concern about what is kept. The joint submission of evidence from the children’s organisations showed that they are worried
“that RMPs will ... be drawn too broadly by public bodies in an attempt to ensure that there can be no possible danger that a public authority could fail to ensure the recording and retention of potentially relevant data.”
In other words, there is an issue around risk aversion. As the minister knows, that goes against the direction of travel of Government policy—it goes against the Crerar review and against the UK Government’s report, “Common Sense Common Safety”. It is too easy to dismiss that by saying, “Yes, yes, it’ll be all right.” We need engagement between the committee, the minister and the voluntary sector.
I hope that, together, we can address the concerns that have been expressed. Strong arguments have been made, including by Professor Harvie, and Ted Brocklebank’s point about the land of Scotland was a good one. There are many reasons why we should have the proposed legislation, and there is genuine consensus, as long as we can address the clear concerns that have been expressed.
15:49
I thank all those members who have spoken in this thoughtful debate. I will try to address as many of the issues that have been raised as I can.
The bill is essentially a simple one—it is about improving the management of public record keeping. Records form an important part of our lives, but we tend to ignore them until something goes wrong.
The origins of the bill lie in Tom Shaw’s report, which shows precisely what the impact is when record keeping goes wrong and why the bill is important and necessary. Many members have reflected on that. Hugh O’Donnell alluded to the fact that records are about people’s lives, and if records are not kept and dealt with properly there can be a human cost.
The bill was supported by the lead committee, which agreed that Tom Shaw’s report and the experiences of former residents of care homes and residential schools in trying to trace their records formed a persuasive argument that legislation is required, and that a voluntary scheme, which is effectively what we have now, would not address known deficiencies.
The bill will fully complement existing regulatory requirements, many of which relate to which records should be kept; that is the point I made to Ken Macintosh. Tom Shaw pointed out to the committee the need for organisations to evidence whether they have delivered services properly to individuals, and the bill will provide for that.
Claire Baker and other members made the point about the need for accountability with regard to public funds, and a number of members noted the points that COSLA raised. We have been engaging with COSLA, and we will continue to do so. There are issues around the keeper’s role in producing the model plans and guidance, and we will try to ensure that by stage 2 we have enough assurances that there will be consultation and engagement. We can look at the wording on that, and ensure that we have regard to it in any consultation.
The bill is not a one-size-fits-all approach: different sectors will have different records management plans based on sector needs and their assessment of the risks that they face. It is for the professionals in the sectors—in child care, policing, health and other areas—to make those decisions within an overall management framework provided by the bill. For example, I would not expect the National Museums of Scotland, although they would be operating in the same regulatory scheme, to have records management plans similar to those of child care providers.
The Scottish Parliament is named in the bill to give an assurance of the memory of democracy in Scotland; we would expect archiving and responsible management from the Parliament, and I am sure that it has an effective records management plan in place as we speak.
Ian McKee touched on the important aspects of health and patient records. Although much of the debate has focused on provisions that relate to child care, which are the source of the concern that Tom Shaw expressed in his report, it has been quite wide ranging with regard to the areas in which the bill will have an impact.
Policies and procedures for the management of patient records in the NHS are well established. The keeper was involved in the development of the NHS code of practice on records management, and we are seeking to do that for other areas. We would not expect any change to the records management process in that area, precisely because strong procedures have been developed.
Some members, including Ted Brocklebank and Sandra White, have asked why the bill does not identify specific types of important records. Sandra White mentioned the issue of common good assets, which was raised with the committee. I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is sitting beside me at this point, because the guidance that he issued in 2007 is important in terms of what people are expected to keep. I am sure that there is a common expectation that local authorities should keep records of such assets.
However, as I emphasised in my earlier remarks—and as the committee’s report reflects—the content of records is a matter for the authorities, and it would not be appropriate to deal with and define a procedure for common good assets in the bill.
I return to Ted Brocklebank’s point about which records are kept. There are different ways of dealing with that. We could, in the next session of Parliament, introduce a uniform bill that lists the records that should be kept, but we should perhaps consider individual pieces of legislation. For example, the issue of land management, which Ted Brocklebank raised, could be dealt with in that way. With regard to children, the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 already specifies that records should be kept for 25 years, so that issue is being kept under that piece of legislation.
Claire Baker highlighted the need for the keeper to consult public bodies in preparing the model plan and guidance. I give her an assurance that we will seek to address that and see what we can do at stage 2.
Chris Harvie made the important point that the bill is not just about child care, and he gave an interesting analogy with transport records and noted the ability to save money if one knew what existed already. He mentioned future proofing, which is one of the reasons why the public records definition is as it is. We do not know in what shape or form, or diskette, we will find public records in the future, so it is important that we have a broad definition that allows future proofing.
To sum up, the bill cannot put right what went wrong in the past, but it can help us to avoid the same problems in the future. We owe it to former residents of care homes and schools and survivors of abuse—indeed, to all future generations in this country—to make the necessary improvements to the way in which public authorities deal with records. In that way, we can safeguard people’s rights and their identities as individuals, and secure our collective memory.
Scotland has been operating under a public records act that is now over 70 years old. While it remains relevant, that legislation needs updating to carry us through into the modern records and information age.
The improvements to record keeping that are enshrined in the bill will address the problems that Shaw and the Kerelaw inquiry identified and provide a solid framework within which to improve records management in public authorities for many years to come.
Karen Whitefield referred to dialogue that currently takes place; I confirm that that will continue. I agree with Karen Whitefield and others that bodies that are in receipt of public funding should keep records properly. She, Ken Macintosh and Alasdair Allan made the point about accountability. That is another aspect. However, the moral imperative that brings us to the Parliament on the issue cannot be forgotten.
I am pleased to have the Parliament’s support in going forward, and I seek to work constructively with the committee at stage 2.