I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He knows well enough — he will probably share this view—that this is not the Bill that he, I or many other hon. Members wanted to see being debated and hopefully given a Third Reading and sent on to Another place. However, that is the way of the world.

At one point during the Committee deliberations the Minister described himself as an errand boy. I think he put himself down too much because, although we are far apart on detail, his attitude has been to be as helpful as possible. I acknowledge that it was a difficult job collecting views from colleagues in a range of other Government Departments; none the less, we have a record of the assurances he has given the Committee and the House on the regulations for the sectors which are the subject of this Bill. We have his word, which I am perfectly happy to accept, that best endeavours will be made to see that those assurances are carried out.

I pick no quarrel with the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) about the need to have sensible exceptions, particularly with respect to sensitive records, whether produced on pupils at school or in any other part of the education system. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that these records should not be frank and well based. This is what the argument is about. One of the aims of this Bill will be to persuade those who readily write these reports and who have to make judgments as part of that process to stop to think whether they can justify what they write. We do not want teachers who are tittle-tattles, because these records follow children the whole way through the educational process. I have seen some, not in the city of Birmingham but elsewhere, with no more than an initial. The teacher who put that piece of paper in the file may be untraceable because he has long since changed schools, or could have gone to a different part of the country. It is that to which we object.

We hope that the discretion that will be exercised within this Bill will lead to better record-keeping and to records that will assist. After all, the keeping of these records in these sectors and those in the Bill as first published is all about trying to make the syste more efficient. They are supposed to be there to help. They are not there to punish or to chastise.

Derogatory or critical remarks are bound to be made in some circumstances, whether about the behaviour of former council tenants over a property they had 10 years ago and left without paying the rent or about some suspicion that circumstances at home are affecting the learning capabilities or development of a child at school. I acknowledge absolutely that it is right that such information should be recorded, but we are saying that, when it is written down, the person or official doing so must justify to himself or herself, and if need be to the record holder or the record holder's parents, that this assessment or judgment is made in all honesty.

The very worst that will happen under this Bill is that someone will say that he wants to see his social services record. He will pay his 50p, or whatever it might be if there is to be a charge, and, accepting that those judgments in those difficult sectors have been made in a well-intentioned manner, the person concerned could say that the record is wrong and that a mistake has been made. One hopes that he would have a right to attach a comment on a judgment made about him.

I say again to the hon. Lady that, when these regulations are drawn up, proper care has to be taken—perhaps no more so than with social services. The Minister needs no lectures about this. I think that we have all had letters from an organisation called Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services. I will not read the whole of the letter from the general secretary but the organisation makes the strong point that it thinks that it is wrong to prevent prospective or existing adoptive and foster parents, or anyone who has been adopted or fostered, from having access to the files relating to them to ensure that those files do not contain any inaccuracies. It is critical in this whole adoption process that there is absolute openness because mistakes can be made. However, every sensible step should be taken to ensure that mistakes are kept to a minimum.

The letter continues: Many of the subsequent decisions about applicants are made by people other than those compiling the records on the strength of those records. That is what happens with record keeping. There is a chain reaction, as records do not necessarily stay with the one person familiar with that file, but are passed from person to person within an organisation. In such matters as adoption and fostering, it is absolutely critical that the records are the best that can be maintained.

I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. I hope that coming events may be delayed long enough to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book.