Petition · PE01489 · Session 4
Realignment of Parliamentary Governance on Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Signatures
0
Comments
23
Considered
2 meetings
What it asks
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish proper Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) as required by legislation. To further impose action that will ensure compliance by the Ombudsman to his Parliamentary remit and provide a fit for purpose SPSO.
What the petitioner did first
This Petition reflects a broad spectrum of concerns relating to Public Complaints. These encompass Public Service Providers (PSPs), SPSO and Parliamentary Governance bodies. For simplification, only those organisations, processes and individuals encountered by the prime Petitioner have been referenced. No positive results were achieved for a myriad of diverse reasons.
Public Service Provider
Matters were discussed with various Councillors; many of whom were sympathetic but all confirmed the limitation of their individual ability to progress matters; noting that support from leaders of the relevant political parties was essential in such matters. The four party leaders were approached: all referred back to the Council Officials that were essentially the subject of the Complaints!
A meeting with the “then” current Chief Executive resulted in a rejection to investigate those formal complaints laid before them or to have the concerns reviewed by an independent external party. Instead a direct request for the SPSO to review such complaints on their behalf was issued.
During this period the Chief Executive was replaced and following discussions with my MSP, who had proved supportive throughout; agreed to take these matters up with the new Chief Executive directly. This failed to positively advance matters, with subsequent correspondence unable to obtain a meeting or agreement to undertake an independent external review. Rather, it resulted in an unrealistic claim that all complaints had been "exhausted": contrary to the evidence provided by that organization. Regretfully for the sake of this process, my MSP was promoted within Government causing the loss of his support.
Scottish Public Service Ombudsman
Delaying six months after the PSP request, the SPSO reverted: noting they were unable to undertake such a review, as the PSP had never implemented any approved investigation procedures. A situation I had advised to both Chief Executives and the SPSO from the start. The PSP thereafter continued to refuse a formal investigation as proscribed by their procedures yet the SPSO refused to direct the PSP to meet their obligations?
Engagement with the SPSO readily identified serious matters of concern relating to multiple aspects of failure of Due Diligence. Discussions with MSP's upon the subsequent refusal of the Ombudsman to engage on the matters raised with his office. These included claims of systemic maladministration and other serious failures of Governance within the SPSO but proved only marginally beneficial.
Parliamentary Governance
Attempts to bring to the attention of the SPCB our claims for consideration of an unfit for purpose role of the Ombudsman were ignored when they addressed his re-appointment. Later, a request for guidance from the PPC was sought; vis-a-vis numerous petitions laid before that committee: Regrettably the SPCB guidance provided to both the LG&RC and PPC did not accurately reflect upon the best evidence and could be subject to reasonable question. This proved seriously detrimental to the subsequent outcomes of these multiple Petitioners.
After significant correspondence, all Officials and Committee members of the SPCB and LG&RC, these bodies were provided an “Argument” (12 pages) & “Strategic Plan Rebuttal” (9 pages) respectively for consideration and possible corrective action. Each document defining the shortfalls in application of their particular Parliamentary remits. This un-necessarily resulted in an extended period of unconstructive correspondence without generating any of the positive results expected.
Rejection by SPCB & LG&RC served as the catalyst for a comprehensive investigation into better understanding SPSO Parliament
Public Service Provider
Matters were discussed with various Councillors; many of whom were sympathetic but all confirmed the limitation of their individual ability to progress matters; noting that support from leaders of the relevant political parties was essential in such matters. The four party leaders were approached: all referred back to the Council Officials that were essentially the subject of the Complaints!
A meeting with the “then” current Chief Executive resulted in a rejection to investigate those formal complaints laid before them or to have the concerns reviewed by an independent external party. Instead a direct request for the SPSO to review such complaints on their behalf was issued.
During this period the Chief Executive was replaced and following discussions with my MSP, who had proved supportive throughout; agreed to take these matters up with the new Chief Executive directly. This failed to positively advance matters, with subsequent correspondence unable to obtain a meeting or agreement to undertake an independent external review. Rather, it resulted in an unrealistic claim that all complaints had been "exhausted": contrary to the evidence provided by that organization. Regretfully for the sake of this process, my MSP was promoted within Government causing the loss of his support.
Scottish Public Service Ombudsman
Delaying six months after the PSP request, the SPSO reverted: noting they were unable to undertake such a review, as the PSP had never implemented any approved investigation procedures. A situation I had advised to both Chief Executives and the SPSO from the start. The PSP thereafter continued to refuse a formal investigation as proscribed by their procedures yet the SPSO refused to direct the PSP to meet their obligations?
Engagement with the SPSO readily identified serious matters of concern relating to multiple aspects of failure of Due Diligence. Discussions with MSP's upon the subsequent refusal of the Ombudsman to engage on the matters raised with his office. These included claims of systemic maladministration and other serious failures of Governance within the SPSO but proved only marginally beneficial.
Parliamentary Governance
Attempts to bring to the attention of the SPCB our claims for consideration of an unfit for purpose role of the Ombudsman were ignored when they addressed his re-appointment. Later, a request for guidance from the PPC was sought; vis-a-vis numerous petitions laid before that committee: Regrettably the SPCB guidance provided to both the LG&RC and PPC did not accurately reflect upon the best evidence and could be subject to reasonable question. This proved seriously detrimental to the subsequent outcomes of these multiple Petitioners.
After significant correspondence, all Officials and Committee members of the SPCB and LG&RC, these bodies were provided an “Argument” (12 pages) & “Strategic Plan Rebuttal” (9 pages) respectively for consideration and possible corrective action. Each document defining the shortfalls in application of their particular Parliamentary remits. This un-necessarily resulted in an extended period of unconstructive correspondence without generating any of the positive results expected.
Rejection by SPCB & LG&RC served as the catalyst for a comprehensive investigation into better understanding SPSO Parliament
Where it was considered
Official Report-
29 Oct 20131 mention
-
14 Jan 20141 mention
Signatures by country
141 online signaturesComments
23 comments, oldest first-
Andrew Mclean 28 Jun 2013I dont understand how this situation could have been allowed to develop and deprive us of so much administrative justice
-
Rehab Auf 30 Jun 2013Most who dealt with the SPSO and did not have a case which the SPSO can publish to show he is attacking public bodies like death in NHS have suffered at the SPSO. Even there is service delivery complaint reviewer is paid by SPSO and there is no other pathway for people to take further their complaints. Court actions are beyond the reach of normal people who do not qualify for legal aid. This leave the majority of middle class with no access to proper pathway to resolve problems they face at public bodies. Nevertheless, Minister as Mr Alex Neil has confirmed the SPSO is not worth a fathering while several million are being spent on this dysfunctional organization.
-
Jan Ooms 30 Jun 2013"When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for." Milton, John
not in my experiences -
Colin Davidson 30 Jun 2013I agree wholeheartedly
-
John Duff 30 Jun 2013For too long cases have been brought before the Ombudsman and not been dealt with in the appropriate manner. There has been no overseeing of these mistakes. No one has checked or investigated these complaints further. It is the job of the Scottish parliament to be seen clearly to ensure accountability with the public. That so far has not happened. I sincerely hope it does begin to ensure there is clear accountability for the Scottish people
-
Eur Ing Richard Townsend-Rose MA CEng MICE 1 Jul 2013Although the SPSO indicate that they have a Quality Management System, it is not adequate and meets no known standard such as the most common British, European and international BS EN ISO 9001.
Possibly an explanation of why the SPSO has not sought accreditation might be made. -
John Gibson 1 Jul 2013The SPSO and local authorities have made my life a complete misery for over 5 years. National government needs to address the issue. I believe that this situation is part of the problem of the suicide statistics in Scotland.
-
M Vesco 2 Jul 2013This petition reflects my own experiences with local authorities and SPSO.
-
Andrew Muir 2 Jul 2013I complained to the SPSO over a five-year period but they performed no investigations. I submitted a similar petition about the SPSO last year but it was closed without any actions. The SPSO should employ several of our intelligent unemployed graduates at a reasonable level of pay to carry out some long overdue investigations to those people that have suffered grave injustices over the years.
-
David Wilson 2 Jul 2013Democracy without justice and justice with Statutory Authority bias is a form of tyranny. No one should be proud of or tolerate such and those that do should hang their head in shame.
-
anne robertson 2 Jul 2013Under auspices of Prof Brown the SPSO are not accountable despite, in my case, an admission of maladministration and apology by the Authority involved.. The vast amount of money spent on SPSO is a waste,unjustified and needs to be investigated. A fairer system would be a mixed panel of professionals and volunteers with relevant experience to judge the circumstances without prejudice or favouritism.
-
a robertson 2 Jul 2013The SPSO has no purpose and a waste of public money. Maldministration was admitted by local authority involved with my case yet the SPSO so called 'investigation' was unfounded, . The investigation panel should be unbiased mixture of professionals and volunteers, failure to reach a fair decisions often causes grief to individuals who seek justice or vindication. The waste of taxpayers money needs to be explained. Public servants should not be protected and must be accountable to the people who pay for the service they provide ie the public.
-
david mclean 2 Jul 2013I don't think that the services they provided were very helpful. I had sought out help and they were very unprofessional and not really giving me the support and resolutions I was asking for. there communication with myself was also very poor I always had to be the one to contact them for updates on my queries
-
jack ward 3 Jul 2013no need to ask why. all of us know who the phonies are. All of us know they only exist to preserve their own existance.
-
Lucy Johnson McDowall 12 Jul 2013I wish to lend my support for the critical need for greater and more effective scrutiny of every area of public sector spending. Failure to deal with complaints effectively often means that thousands of pounds of public money per complaint is wasted without effecting real change.
-
John Colledge 15 Jul 2013This is long overdue. When someone claims a building can be in two places at once you know they are not dealing with your complaint in a professional and accurate manner. They have not only let down the people of this city but potentially left our elected representatives open to legal action for failing to serve the people of Scotland.
-
Kay Lang 15 Jul 2013One word sums the SPSO up
- JOBSWORTH!!!! What a waste of tax payers money. -
LM 16 Jul 2013When the SPSO corresponds on first name terms with the public body you are complaining about what chance do you have of an impartial decision?
-
Jeannie Erskine 23 Jul 2013I was let down by my own country which had promised me justice in one hand but snatched it away with the other, without properly examining my complaint, a case of medical negligence. It became a mechanical exercise designed to achieve a result for the bureaucracy without understanding that a vulnerable citizen was hanging on to her sense of fair play, only to have it thrown in her face.
-
John Allen 23 Jul 2013"SPSO? Good idea, badly thought out." Shameful for a democratic parliament to set up a dictatorial bureaucracy. Poor investigative procedures with hurried conclusions. Not a good way to spend taxpayers money.
-
John Forbes 30 Jul 2013I fully support this petition
-
John Wilson 4 Aug 2013I fully support this petition.
-
Janice McLean 12 Aug 2013This petition is worthy of serious consideration and the implementation of its suggested actions in full. It must not be allowed to become another talking point only exercise. The time is long overdue for perpetually "talking the talk" at the public's expense. This petition offers a substantive vehicle to allow us to "walk the walk". I strongly support this petition.