Hansard

As the minister said, the aim of the bill is to establish a public sector complaints system that is open, accountable, easily accessible to all and that has the trust of the Scottish public. That is quite a challenge. The bill generally meets that challenge.

I welcome the minister's comments about the number of amendments that he accepts from the Local Government Committee's report. I hope that he will continue to reflect on those that he has not yet accepted. I am sure that the convener and other members of the committee will press those points during the debate.

The bill will make it simpler and more effective for members of the public to make complaints about maladministration in the public sector. However, we need to be clear that a public sector ombudsman will not be a panacea and will not solve all the problems that the public have with public services. Although it is right and proper that we publicise the service as much as possible when it comes into being, we must also make it very clear that the ombudsman cannot solve problems that do not fit within the parameters of maladministration.

For many, one of the frustrations of the present system is that their complaints do not seem to fit into any category. We must consider that matter outwith the bill. Although I welcome the commitment to publicise the new service when the bill is enacted, we must be careful not to raise hopes that the service will do what it simply cannot do. I was struck by evidence that only something like 8 per cent of all the complaints that go to the present ombudsmen are dealt with. That means that a substantial number of complaints are not resolved in the ombudsman service. Although it is right that we have a single framework and that we publicise it, I do not want anybody to get the impression that any problem that they take to the ombudsman will be resolved, because the parameters for the ombudsman's work will still be defined within maladministration.

I was disappointed that the minister did not accept the need for amendments to the bill to safeguard and enhance the ombudsman's ability to resolve dispute by informal measures and means. I hope that the minister will reconsider. I was certainly persuaded by the evidence that the committee heard that informal resolution is sometimes better than formal resolution. I understand what the minister is saying, but there will be opportunities at stage 2 to lodge an amendment that will meet those concerns.

I am still not persuaded that the water authorities should not be brought within the scope of the bill. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities gave evidence to that effect. I hope that the minister will reconsider that issue during the passage of the bill. If he does not, concern will be expressed in the future about the water authorities not being included. Water is, and will continue to be, a vital public service.

I turn to the question of the consistency of the range of investigative powers that are included in the bill. At the moment, the Executive continues to allow the NHS ombudsman to have greater powers to investigate judgments as opposed to maladministration. The bill gives an opportunity to widen the range of powers. If we are to have a public services ombudsman, it will be helpful for the ombudsman's range of powers to be consistent. The committee felt strongly that the Executive should consider amending the bill to extend the range of investigative powers so that they are consistent across all authorities.

I will move on to a matter that arose in the evidence that was given to the committee. The Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration expressed concern about the present ombudsman staff. He was not persuaded that the bill conforms to the code of practice for staff transfers in the public sector. When the minister appeared before the committee, he gave an assurance that the code of practice and the guidelines would be met and that staff would be protected at transfer. I am not persuaded that that is the case. I hope that the minister will examine the situation to ensure that staff will not be disadvantaged.

I thank the minister for his positive response to some of the committee's report. I am sure that several amendments will be lodged at stage 2—he is committed to lodging some, but there will be others. All members want the bill to work and want the new office to work well. However, members will lodge amendments to make the bill work better.

I hope that the minister will reflect positively on the comments that were made in the report. I hope that he will not give the usual Executive knee-jerk reaction of rejecting amendments that it does not want. I ask the minister to examine carefully and reflect on some of the amendments that will be lodged. The Scottish public sector ombudsman should be allowed to gain the trust of the people of Scotland. The office of the Scottish public sector ombudsman should be a genuine one-stop shop where the vast majority of complaints can be resolved.