Hansard

I add my thanks to those already expressed to the clerks to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their assistance during the passage of the bill. It is probably fitting that I add my thanks to them for their work over the course of the parliamentary session. Their assistance to me since I joined the committee in 2008 is much appreciated. My thanks also go to Karen Whitefield, who has convened the committee very ably. The bill may have been one of her easier tasks, given some of the tasks that she has had to endure this session. I am thinking particularly of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, which was not the committee’s finest hour from the point of view of consensus. This might be, however. I thank the minister and her team for their willingness to engage and to address the concerns raised by children’s organisations and the voluntary sector about the bill.

The bill has come a long way since it was debated at stage 1. As we have heard, it is part of the legacy of the historical abuse systemic review undertaken by Tom Shaw. His report, which was published in 2007, made three sets of recommendations. The bill considers the third of those, relating to the procedures for the retention of records. We all welcomed the primary intention behind the bill, which was to improve the keeping of records generated by the work of public agencies, voluntary organisations and so on.

I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee and I echo Ken Macintosh’s point about the importance of the information and evidence that we get from people who lobby and engage with Parliament. I put on record my particular thanks to Tom Shaw for his work, not only on the review but in relation to the compelling evidence that he gave us about why the bill was necessary. In fact, if legislation had been in place, the heartache that people have suffered might well have been alleviated, although that is by no means the most important part of the consequences of abuse. We kept that at the forefront of our minds throughout our work on the bill, which allowed us to realise that what we were talking about could not simply be boxed up as, potentially, additional bureaucracy. This was about ensuring that we keep the right records for the right reasons and that we keep them properly, because those records matter in people’s lives, and in the life of our country, whether they are cultural or historical records or just records that help us to know who we are.

The minister has taken on board many of our concerns and many stakeholders’ concerns. A notable shift in the bill’s tone has taken place. As a result, the bill is not heavy handed but a good response to the problems that have been identified. The stage 2 amendments were helpful in taking forward the bill’s tone.

At stage 2, the concern that the keeper might impose a one-size-fits-all approach was at least alleviated. Such an approach is not the bill’s intention. The keeper will work closely with local authorities and others to ensure that the management system is applied in a way that takes account of their needs and respects their judgments about risk. We have probably got that right, and I thank the minister for her attitude in addressing that issue.

Concern about record keeping in relation to common good land was raised with us. Many of us across the parties have encountered that issue in a variety of ways over the years. We were told that the bill did not directly cover such records, but I hope that local authorities will address the issue, because a number of people across Scotland are concerned about it.

The case is clear for bodies in Scotland to have to keep better records and for the record-keeping process to be reviewed and continuously improved. We are happy and do not hesitate to support the bill as amended.

11:51