Hansard

I am delighted to join this morning’s love-in—sorry, debate. I am glad to see so much consensus. The bill shows what can happen when everyone works together towards a common aim.

As has been said, the bill’s stimulus was the Shaw report in 2007, which examined child abuse in residential and children’s homes from 1950 to 1995. Tom Shaw concluded that difficulties for former residents of such homes in tracing records for identity, family or medical reasons were due to poor record keeping in the public sector. To ensure that future generations are not affected in that way, new legislation is needed to encompass fully all public records. The bill is of course that new legislation.

Mr Shaw told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that the bill would end

“a range of weaknesses, gaps and inconsistencies”.

He also said that record keeping needed to be viewed as

“a proper way of recording the life experience and circumstances of an individual”

rather than “a bureaucratic chore” or “a storage problem.”

Mr Shaw said that his historical abuse systemic review found that record keeping was unsatisfactory in more than half the public authorities that were surveyed. He told us how one of his researchers had visited several archives and stores where records were held and described what she found:

“it sounds Dickensian—dusty storerooms where cardboard boxes that appeared not to have been opened for a long time sat. Whenever people were asked what was in the boxes, the answer was in effect, ‘We don’t know—would you like to have a look?’ ... In that way, existing practice has failed ... My ... concern is that the longer it takes to”

put right,

“the more records will be lost and the more people who never access what is held on them will pass through the system.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 19 January 2011; c 4543, 4546-7.]

In many cases, records are simply non-existent.

The issue is about identity, as other members have said. Many unfortunate Scots have slipped through the proverbial cracks because of inadequate record keeping for too long and have grown up without knowledge of their youth, family history or who they really are. Scotland has a moral obligation to manage the populace’s personal records successfully. Moreover, the bill’s primary aim is simply to improve public record keeping. The race to keep records has—unfortunately—lagged behind technological developments and population growth.

The bill covers the management of records once they exist. Decisions on how they should be created will be left to the keeper of the records of Scotland and the authorities. Organisations with largely successful record-keeping practices will not be affected and will be able to continue good practice, whereas those that have obviously poor record keeping will feel the greatest impact of the bill and will be required to make a positive change.

In relation to the allegations about Kerelaw school, the absence of effective record keeping was undoubtedly a key factor. No longer will files be lost or hard to locate because of neglectful minds and careless storage of important documents.

The bill is about better handling of records and not about creating new records. The bill is necessary to ensure consistency across public authorities, whose records management plans will be approved by the keeper.

Children who grow up in care have often been unable to find any record of their childhood—not even a photograph of them or their family. We owe to those who are in care and to future generations the assurance that records will now be properly kept.

11:54