Hansard

I am very happy to do so if that would be of convenience to the committee.I thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the Health and Community Care Committee on the bill that will establish a public sector ombudsman in Scotland. The Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill is the culmination of a long process, which started with the enactment in 1998 of the Scotland Bill. Section 91 of the Scotland Act 1998 states: "The Parliament shall make provision for the investigation of relevant complaints"of maladministration.The Scottish Executive began a consultation process in October 2000, which culminated in the bill that is before us. Ombudsman arrangements south of the border have been the subject of a similar review, although that has not yet resulted in any firm legislative proposals; Scotland is showing the way. I welcome the Scottish Executive's early commitment to legislation, which will enact reforms that are designed to produce a user-friendly and effective ombudsman service for the Scottish public. I submitted evidence to both consultations jointly with my Scottish ombudsman colleagues. My staff have played a full part in a number of working parties with the other ombudsmen's staff and the Scottish Executive, on whose joint steering group they also serve.Only by the creation of a single, unified ombudsman scheme can the difficulties that are faced by those who wish to pursue complaints against bodies that are in separate jurisdictions be removed. An obvious example is a complaint about discharge from an NHS trust into care that is provided by a local authority social work department or care service. It is right in these days of joined-up government and cross-department service delivery that citizens should be able to make complaints without needless and artificial restrictions. I therefore welcome the bill's provision of a new, unified public sector ombudsman.Although many aspects of the bill are either policy matters—which are, properly, the concern of the Scottish Parliament—or detailed operational matters, I have concerns about three elements of the bill. I have outlined those concerns in the memorandum that I have supplied to the committee.First, the bill almost exclusively emphasises investigation. The only functions of the new ombudsman that are mentioned in the bill are investigation and reporting. The bill is not flexible enough in that respect. It would have been preferable to draft the bill in more general terms, leaving as much as possible to the ombudsman's discretion. That would reflect the working methods that are employed by the existing ombudsmen and allow some flexibility in future as technological and social change occurs.I understand that the local government ombudsman published only nine reports of formal investigations in 2000-01, compared with 210 complaints that were informally resolved. I expect that, increasingly, complaints that relate to matters that are now under my jurisdiction as the Scottish parliamentary ombudsman will be resolved informally. I recognise that certain types of complaint must be dealt with by formal investigation resulting in a statutory report. I am thinking particularly about the complex clinical complaints that I received as health service ombudsman. It is surely right that the principle of the ombudsman's resolving each complaint in the most appropriate manner—with the capacity that is necessary to resolve complaints speedily—should not be unnecessarily restricted under the bill.Secondly, it is not clear to me whether the position of the existing staff of the three ombudsmen has been properly protected. The bill as introduced might not conform to the code of practice on staff transfers in the public sector. Although I recognise that detailed examination of the provisions relating to staffing and pensions are perhaps more properly a matter for stage 2 consideration, it is surely an important principle that equitable arrangements and adequate protection for employees should be enshrined in the proposed legislation.Thirdly, I am afraid that the terms of the bill might give rise to incorrect impressions about the ombudsman's independence. As things stand, the determination of the pay, allowances and pensions of the ombudsman and of his or her deputies will be undertaken by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is currently within my jurisdiction as Scottish parliamentary ombudsman. It is proposed in the bill that the SPCB, or "Parliamentary corporation", be within the jurisdiction of the new ombudsman.If the ombudsman is to function successfully, credibility in the eyes of the general public and of the administrators in the organisations that are subject to his jurisdiction will be essential. Clearly, the ombudsman must be impartial and independent of those bodies or organisations and must be seen to be so. It might pose a problem if his or her terms of service can be determined by a body that is within his or her jurisdiction.Those are the three aspects of the bill about which I have some reservations. Nevertheless, I emphasise that I broadly welcome the bill as introduced, because it makes provision for an ombudsman service that is open, efficient, accountable and responsive to the needs of the public.