Hansard

Yes, I have. I thank you for the opportunity to get some things on the record that I think will be helpful for the committee in its deliberations on the bill.The Public Records (Scotland) Bill is about improving the management of records by public authorities, but it also has—as I think you have heard this morning—an important moral dimension. Tom Shaw’s compelling report and his evidence to the committee show starkly how vulnerable children were not looked after properly while in care and that records about them were not looked after, either.Some have argued that the problems that the Shaw report uncovered were put right with the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, but the Kerelaw inquiry showed otherwise. It found many instances of poor record keeping; for example, some records of senior management meetings between Kerelaw and council departments could not be traced, other files were difficult to find and there were problems accessing older electronic records. A proper records management plan would help in avoiding many of those problems. The Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 state that authorities must ensure the safe-keeping of case files and say for how long they will be retained, but they do not address wider issues of records management.I am sure that many members of the committee will, like me, have heard harrowing first-hand accounts from constituents who have been in care and whose earlier lives are a worrying blank because the records about that time are disjointed, deficient or have disappeared. The reasons are various, but to put it simply, no one took responsibility for managing the records properly. The moral argument for the bill is powerful, but ultimately the bill is about good governance and improving efficiency across public services. Records are crucial to organisations, particularly in this information age: reliable information depends on good records. At a time when public bodies are looking at ways of increasing efficiency, they need to manage their records and information better than they do now. Some already do it very well, but everyone agrees that there is room for improvement.I know that the committee has heard evidence that our proposals might be disproportionate. I disagree: we have taken a light-touch approach, compared to other countries, and our proposals went through a systematic scrutiny check, as was recommended by the Crerar report. The bill does not prescribe what records are to be created or how long they are to be kept; those are matters for individual authorities and existing regulatory bodies.The bill does not give the keeper any powers to dictate the content of records. Authorities will draft plans setting out how they intend to manage the records that they create, and the keeper’s responsibilities are about approving those plans and helping to ensure that they are implemented. I understand, however, that the language of the bill has given some people the impression that the keeper will assume a prescriptive and directive role. I have therefore asked my officials to look at the bill’s wording with a view to lodging appropriate amendments at stage 2.Some evidence that has been submitted to the committee has pointed to increased costs. Certainly, good record keeping is not without cost, but in the longer term the costs are much lower than they are for poor record keeping or, indeed, for no record keeping. Where authorities already manage records well, there will be minimal costs.The definition of “public records” in the bill is intentionally broad to make it future proof, so that it will catch paper records, electronic records and records that will be created in other future formats, depending on technological change. It covers records of private and voluntary sector organisations, which will be “public records” where they relate to functions that are performed on behalf of a public authority. The only consequence of defining a record as “public” is that it must be covered by a records management plan. Indeed, the definition only has reference to this bill.Importantly, the definition “public” does not make the records public property, publicly accessible or publicly owned. The bill does not create new rights of access to information or compromise confidentiality. Access rights are already dealt with in Scottish and United Kingdom legislation and the bill will not alter those rights or responsibilities in any way.Records that are created by the voluntary sector on behalf of public authorities must be covered because the Shaw report found in such cases that records frequently disappeared when the service ended or the voluntary organisation dissolved. However, the responsibility in the bill is with the public authority: it will not put any direct responsibility on the private sector or voluntary sector.The bill requires the keeper to issue a model records management plan and guidance. He will continue to work closely with authorities and the voluntary sector in drawing those up. Voluntary sector concerns about dealing with different records management systems in different authorities will largely be met through common records management plans and the generic work that is already being done by local authority records managers.Some argue that the proposed scrutiny function and sanctions are contrary to Crerar, but the main focus of the bill is not about scrutiny but about making consistent and durable improvements. To do that, a degree of scrutiny is essential, but that has been kept to a minimum in relation to the records management plan. I reassure the committee that the keeper has neither the intention nor the resources to carry out blanket inspections, but will react to specific problems and assist public authorities in improving their record keeping.Others argue that we can improve public record keeping by voluntary means. I appreciate the good intentions and genuine desire to get records right this time, but I firmly believe that the only way to ensure consistent and lasting improvement is by an act of this Parliament.In legal terms, the bill is extremely tightly drawn and does not cover content or access. A number of matters have been raised by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the voluntary sector dealing with children’s issues. As the process of the bill continues, it is my intention to work closely with both on their separate but sometimes related issues to ensure that when the bill is enacted, issues of content, policy and scrutiny of service delivery remain firmly in the hands of the specialist authorities and agencies.On the narrower scope of the bill on public records management, I will ensure that the keeper works in strong partnership with bodies such as COSLA, and with local government officers, other public authorities and representatives of the voluntary sector to develop and implement guidance and ensure tangible benefits from the legislation. A partnership approach and ethos of joint working underpins that intentTo 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 care residents and survivors of abuse—indeed to all future generations in this country—to make the necessary improvements to the way that public authorities deal with records, to safeguard their rights and their identities as individuals and to secure our collective memory.