Current Petitions

I endorse everything Murdo Fraser said. There are two issues here. First, there has been an improvement in turnaround times since the new ombudsman took office but, since the last time I appeared before this committee on this subject, my postbag has been inundated with complaints about the ombudsman, most of which are fairly recent, so it is clear that there is still quite a bit of disquiet. Secondly, my observation is that there is a lack of investigative skills in the ombudsman’s office; that is the source of most of the complaints. There is also a lack of powers; the ombudsman can make recommendations but he does not have much power. If the SPSO’s role were benchmarked against that of the information commissioner, I submit that the information commissioner’s office would be found to be much more effective than the SPSO, albeit it has a slightly different remit.Like Murdo Fraser, I think there is a need for an independent investigation into the effectiveness, powers and remit of the SPSO. The performance issues, particularly in relation to investigative skills, should be investigated. There is a need to talk to users. Although the Local Government and Communities Committee considers an annual report from the ombudsman, it has never actually spoken to any of the users of the service. The ombudsman found in favour of many of the petitioners, but they were still left with a great deal of frustration, either at the time that was taken or because nothing happened thereafter.The independent investigation should be carried out by the Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee or it should be commissioned by the Public Petitions Committee or the Local Government and Communities Committee in such a way that it is not treated as a party-political matter. The issue is bigger than that; any investigation or review should be independent and be seen to be independent and fair and be about the effectiveness of the current operation and consider the powers and remit of the ombudsman in the future.

The Local Government and Communities Committee met Jim Martin, the ombudsman, earlier this year and two weeks ago. He was asked about the petitions two weeks ago and he accepted some issues that petitioners had raised. He said that he is fairly new in office and that he has put into operation structures that he hopes will speed the time that is taken to deal with complaints.Earlier this year, Mr Martin talked about the ombudsman’s powers. He has the power to lay reports before the Parliament, but the guidance that is issued to the ombudsman contains nothing clear about the powers in relation to those reports. He has the power only to lay a report before the Parliament. He and the committee expressed frustration about that and felt that the powers needed to be reviewed. It is helpful that Phyllis and Robert French say in their letter to the committee that nobody seems to object to widening the powers—the issue is how the powers are monitored and used.Cathie Craigie is right—whether the corporate body, the committee or the Local Government and Communities Committee does the review, it must be more wide-ranging and must not consider just how the SPSO operates at present. When Mr Martin attended the Local Government and Communities Committee meeting recently, I asked what action is expected to be taken after the ombudsman lays a report to the Parliament and whether the ombudsman has an enforcement role in relation to the organisation that he reports against. Many petitioners are frustrated that, although reports have been made to the Parliament, that has been the end of the road and no formal instruction has been given to the public body involved to take the action that the ombudsman had outlined to resolve the issues. The wider point is about the ombudsman’s powers. The petitions could be referred to the Local Government and Communities Committee, which I have no doubt would refer us to the discussion in the meeting two weeks ago. It would be useful for all concerned to refer the petitions to that committee and possibly the corporate body. As the funder of ombudsmen, the corporate body could be asked whether it intends to review the SPSO’s policies and powers.

I am interested in what John Wilson said. It is perhaps worth reflecting the other side of it, which is that the moment the SPSO has the power to enforce something, first of all it becomes a kind of legal proceeding and, secondly, he or she will be inundated by every person who feels that they have got the wrong answer from the public service. We learned from a tribunals debate a few weeks ago that a million tribunal decisions are made each year in Scotland. I came to the conclusion that another appeal procedure is probably not what we want, because it would immediately be overwhelmed with people who did not like the first decision.Nevertheless, there probably is a case for reviewing the ombudsman legislation and looking at what the SPSO is supposed to be doing, but it is not obvious to me how we get that done. From what John Wilson said, I am not convinced that the Local Government and Communities Committee is proposing to carry out such a review and, clearly, we are not in a position to do it. It sounds like a Governmental thing or possibly a Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body thing. I seek some advice on where we can refer the petition so that the whole basis of the SPSO can be reviewed, because I think that that is the nub of the issue.

I see that the ombudsman complained about how the Public Petitions Committee handled its previous session on the petition. I would like to make it clear that there are so many identical letters because we were advised by the clerks that that is what we should do; it is not the case that everybody originally wrote an identical letter. When we had discussions with the clerk, we were advised that it had to be done that way, otherwise we would have sent in just one submission. We followed the advice that we received; it was not a round robin.

I am happy, with the permission of the people who have written to me, to supply the Public Petitions Committee, the Local Government and Communities Committee or the SPCB with copies of the many complaints.

Can I make the point, convener—to defend the clerks—that I suspect that that is precisely what the clerk was trying to avoid? We are not a court of appeal for decisions that come to the SPSO; we never will be and we might as well not pretend that we are now. That is precisely why we do not want to know the detail of the complaints—that is not an issue for us—but we do need to worry about the process and the implications of how things are done, hence having identical petitions from a number of people who want to be involved is, I suggest, the right way forward, albeit that it is not obvious beforehand that that is the right way to do it. I want to defend the clerk’s approach. We can now see why you went that way.