Current Petitions

The next five petitions, which have been grouped together, are PE1076, PE1163, PE1186, PE1190 and PE1212. I will explain them for the benefit of members of the public. We have had a series of petitions over the past couple of years relating to different experiences that members of the public have had with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which is the complaints body for citizens in Scotland who feel that they have not been treated well by a public body or agency.Petition PE1076, by D W R Whittet, calls for an appeals tribunal to review final decisions by the ombudsman when a complainer so requests. The other petitions relate to the effectiveness of the SPSO. For example, PE1186 calls for the abolition of the SPSO, and PE1190 calls for the Government to ensure that local authorities provide the SPSO and the complainant, at the point that it is requested, with all information that is deemed relevant to any investigation. Petitioners have raised a range of issues about the SPSO.We have tried to deal with the petitions, knowing that there are avenues through other parliamentary committees for dealing with the ombudsman's role. However, there has been a change at senior level in the office of the ombudsman—which is one of those words that, given contemporary attitudes, we feel awkward saying. The newly appointed SPSO has given a number of commitments about carrying out a review of the organisation, which I think will take on board many of the issues that the petitions have raised.I invite committee members to make observations or comments on the petitions. I know that every committee member will have had anguished letters from constituents about their experiences of a body that is meant to resolve their concerns about another body that is already messing them about, so it would be helpful if members had comments.I am sorry that that took so long, but I thought that it would be helpful for members of the public to know what the issues are.

I tend to agree with you, convener. I feel that the committee has carefully and fully considered each petition. We have had assurances from the newly appointed ombudsman that procedures will be improved and that the backlog of petitions will be dealt with. Furthermore, criticisms of the way in which complaints have been processed have been acknowledged, and the SPSO will try to deal with the lack of confidence that the public has expressed about particular procedures. Given those reassurances and that the committee has, in my view, done all that it can to consider carefully the criticisms, I think that we should close the petitions, because the committee can do nothing further.

Are there any other comments or observations? Mary Scanlon will become a fully paid-up member of the committee shortly.

In the light of those comments from members, we acknowledge the responses that we have had and close the petitions. We hope that the issues that have been raised can be resolved through the review process and perhaps by the SPSO adopting a different way of working.