Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is the first time that I have been told that I can speak for as long as I like. The Local Government Committee was in the chamber last week, is here this week, and will be here next week and the week after that. I suggest that our names are put on the seats so that we know where to sit.

The committee and the clerks have been extremely busy. I want to put on record my thanks to committee members, as the committee has met weekly for as long as I can remember. Last Tuesday, we met at quarter to two and the meeting did not close until about 20 past six.

We consider carefully the bills that come before us and, from the responses from ministers, it seems that we are doing an excellent job, because many of the suggestions that we have made have been accepted.

Today, we are considering the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. As others have said, the policy objective is to have a one-stop shop, headed by a new Scottish public sector ombudsman, to deal with complaints. At the moment, complaints are dealt with by a Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration, a health ombudsman, a local administration ombudsman and a housing association ombudsman. The thrust of the bill is to establish an open, accountable and easily accessible public sector complaints system, which has the trust of the Scottish people. The bill will make the system simpler, more effective and more transparent, and will improve publicity.

In their written and oral evidence, all witnesses welcomed the one-stop-shop proposals but, as usual, some of them had concerns. One of those was that we should not lose the extensive knowledge and expertise built up over the years by individual ombudsmen and their officials. The committee agreed with those sentiments, but we did not support the suggestion that there should be a deputy ombudsman for either health or housing. I have to disagree with my comrade Janis Hughes and agree with Iain Smith on that point.

Members should be forewarned that the Local Government Committee will bring discussions on community planning to the Parliament. The committee felt that, because of the integrated approach implied by the emergence of community planning, it was important to allow the new body to develop as flexibly as possible. We acknowledge that the existing expertise needs to be retained, but we feel that people should start to work together in the new one-stop shop and learn from one another, rather than being separated.

Witnesses noted the bill's emphasis on investigations. Some expressed concern that, as the bill stands, the ombudsman may be vulnerable to challenge, in the courts or by auditors. Tricia Marwick spoke about that. The Health and Community Care Committee and the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration also expressed those concerns. However, the Minister for Finance and Public Services was of the opinion that the bill provided a statutory framework for the ombudsman to carry out his or her duties and that the fact that the bill contains no provision on what can or cannot be done means that there will be wider scope to deal with issues as the ombudsman sees fit. The committee was not wholly convinced by the minister's comments. We ask him to consider whether amendments are needed to safeguard the ability of the ombudsman to resolve disputes informally. I note what the minister has said today.

The provision for local authorities to ask the ombudsman to initiate an investigation is new. Although the housing association ombudsman was concerned that there might be a risk that an authority would use the new ombudsman to manage its own complaints, the committee was persuaded by other evidence that it was helpful for authorities to be able to request that an investigation be initiated. However, we cited the example of a complete service failure by an executive agency such as a local enterprise company, which we believed would be more properly investigated by a parliamentary committee than by an ombudsman. I draw the Executive's attention to that example.

We consider that, at this point, there is no need to add to the list of bodies, as that can be done later. I acknowledge Tricia Marwick's comments about water authorities.

The bill still allows the ombudsman to investigate matters of clinical judgment in the health service, but only matters of maladministration may be investigated in complaints against local authorities. Many witnesses felt that the new body's remit should be wider than the investigation of maladministration. However, the minister does not hold that view. He believes that organisations such as local authorities are democratically accountable and so a wider investigatory remit is not necessary.

The committee decided that, with the growth of joint, multidisciplinary working—and eventually with community planning—the differences between what can be investigated could cause problems. For example, witnesses from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland pointed out that all their work is conducted closely with health services and local authorities and that it would be difficult to unravel who was responsible for problems in the event of a complaint being investigated. We asked the Executive to consider ways of amending the bill at stage 2 to make the range of powers of investigation consistent across all authorities.

The power to investigate maladministration in relation to the internal management and organisation of schools is new. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Glasgow City Council were unhappy about the proposals, as they felt that they would allow the ombudsman to stray into investigating matters of professional judgment, such as the curriculum and teaching management. However, the minister made it very clear that the bill would limit the ombudsman in investigating matters of professional judgment. The committee considered that question for some time and discussed it in detail. We finally agreed that it is appropriate for the ombudsman to investigate administration and management in schools, and nothing else.

The confidentiality of information provided was another question on which the committee spent some time. The bill will remove restrictions on the ombudsman's access to information from the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The committee still had concerns and sought assurances from the minister that safeguards will be in place to protect the applicant, so that the quality and extent of the information provided is not adversely affected.

We welcomed the inclusion of provisions to publicise the service. We talked a lot about that, because we think that it is very important. We also think it important that local complaints procedures should be exhausted before the ombudsman is approached. Mary Scanlon raised that. We welcomed the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's assurances on the independence of the ombudsman's post. The SPCB will consider the pay, allowances and pension of the ombudsman. We are satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that there will be no conflict of interest.

The minister has given assurances that safeguards are also in place on staff transfer arrangements. As the minister said, the committee suggested that the name should be the Scottish public services ombudsman. I am pleased that he appears to have accepted that suggestion.

I have spoken for seven minutes; that is the longest speech I have ever made in the chamber. I ask members to agree to the general principles of the bill.