Hansard

As the minister with responsibility for public services, I especially welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The bill is a prime example of devolution working for the benefit of the people of Scotland. It will create the framework for new public sector ombudsman arrangements that are specifically tailored to meet Scottish needs. With this bill, Scotland is taking the lead within the UK in an important policy area. The bill will put our public sector complaints system on a par with the most progressive systems elsewhere. It will contribute to our drive for better delivery of public services and further our commitment to promote the modernising government programme.

The people of Scotland have a right to expect modern, effective, high-quality and first-class public services. Similarly, they have the right to expect a fair hearing if they consider that a failure in the delivery of those services has caused injustice or hardship. Effective ombudsman arrangements are a vital element in ensuring that the public are protected from such injustice or hardship. Better government needs an efficient complaints system to deal with that.

The bill aims to establish a complaints system that is accessible, open and accountable, and which commands the trust and confidence of the Scottish public. The bill fulfils the requirement in the Scotland Act 1998 for the Parliament to provide for the investigation of complaints, specifically those relating to actions of members of the Scottish Executive or other office-holders in the Scottish Administration.

The bill has been developed following two extensive consultation exercises undertaken by the Executive. About 800 organisations and individuals, including special interest and community groups, public bodies, trade unions and professional and trade organisations, were given the opportunity to comment on our proposals. We judged it to be essential that the consultation process take account of the views of real people in real processes. We therefore arranged for people who had recent experience of using the ombudsman system to contribute by offering views on not only our proposals but the effectiveness of the current arrangements. We are grateful for all the contributions that we have received.

The bill has benefited from extensive consultation, which has greatly assisted our wish to establish a complaints system that better reflects Scottish circumstances. Throughout the consultations, it has been clear to the Executive that many aspects of the existing ombudsman systems have proved extremely effective, so in drafting the bill we have sought to retain what has worked well and to complement that framework with a range of significant reforms to create a better complaints system for Scotland.

I am pleased that the Local Government Committee's report endorses the general principles of the bill and commends them to the Parliament. The report raises a number of issues to which I will respond. The Executive will, of course, consider carefully all the matters raised by the committee as work on the bill proceeds. I thank the convener, Trish Godman, and the other committee members for the significant amount of work that they have undertaken in scrutinising the bill.

The principal reform introduced by the bill is the creation of a one-stop shop combining the existing offices of the parliamentary, health service, local government and housing association ombudsmen in Scotland. The new office will also take over the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland's function of investigating complaints relating to mental health matters—as recommended by the Millan committee report—and complaints that are currently dealt with by the external complaints adjudicators for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

The one-stop shop will be headed by a single Scottish public sector ombudsman, who will be supported by up to three deputy ombudsmen. The question of an appropriate job title was thoroughly aired in both our consultation exercises. In particular, we sought suggestions for a gender-neutral title. A clear majority of respondents to both consultations favoured the title "ombudsman". I attach a degree of importance to that consultation and response. The term "ombudsman", which was coined for the role by the Scandinavians, is readily understood and recognised by the public, is by far the most commonly used title for this type of office throughout the world, and provides a clearer indication of the unique functions of the office than any alternative title. The committee's report suggested that the Executive should consider changing the title of the office-holder to the Scottish public services ombudsman. That is a helpful suggestion to which we will give positive consideration in advance of stage 2.

The ombudsman and deputies will be appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Parliament. That arrangement reinforces the independence of the proposed office. To improve the accountability of those office-holders, they will be appointed for a fixed term of up to five years, which will be renewable once. A second renewal will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

A one-stop shop will provide benefits not only for the public, who will find it easier to make complaints, but for the ombudsman, who should realise tangible improvements in the operation and effectiveness of the complaints system. All complaints and information requests will be dealt with by the same office using standardised procedures. That will avoid the confusion that can arise at present when a complaint falls within the remit of more than one ombudsman. A single organisation dealing with public sector complaints will develop a higher public profile and will be easier to publicise. It will allow greater flexibility in the use of staff and other resources and will provide opportunities for more joint working and sharing of information.

The one-stop shop will be funded by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The funding associated with the existing ombudsmen will, where appropriate, be redirected to the SPCB. The Executive will also provide the Parliament with additional funding to support the start-up costs that are required to establish the new office. The bill empowers the SPCB to determine the pay, allowances and pensions of the ombudsman and deputy ombudsmen. Those provisions reflect the common approach to managing the offices of office-holders who are the responsibility of the Parliament, which was agreed after discussions at official level between the Executive and the Parliament.

There are a number of ways in which the bill seeks to make the ombudsman more accessible. It removes the need for complaints to go through MSPs and allows complaints to be made orally in special circumstances, or to be made by electronic means. It also allows a person to authorise a representative to complain on their behalf. Such arrangements taken alone will make a significant difference to the disadvantaged within Scottish society. Those who have difficulty with reading or writing or those who, for whatever reason, are currently discouraged from making a complaint or who are unable to make a complaint, will be encouraged to make full use of the complaints system, which is intended to be of benefit to all.

We attach great importance to promoting public awareness of the new ombudsman and his or her role. The bill requires the authorities that are listed in the bill to provide information about the right to complain to the ombudsman in, for example, leaflets, guidance and correspondence.

The committee's report suggested that the ombudsman should have a consistent range of investigatory powers within his or her jurisdiction. I understand that that suggestion arises mainly from the health service ombudsman's power to investigate matters of clinical judgment and the housing association ombudsman's ability to investigate matters other than maladministration.

We have not sought to retain the housing association ombudsman's wider remit because we have identified only one occasion on which it has been used. That case could have been dealt with as maladministration. Therefore, it was clear that the wider remit was unnecessary. Maladministration is a broad term and, in practice, it enables ombudsmen to look into a wide range of matters.