Chamber
Plenary, 31 Jan 2002
31 Jan 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill: Stage 1
At this stage of the debate, it is difficult to be original, but I will try my best.
Members have not really dealt with consultation. The Executive undertook two consultations—that is important—and the committee asked witnesses about the process. They said that the process had been thorough. Every witness who gave written or oral evidence was in favour of the one-stop approach to complaints in the public sector.
Stage 1 consideration of the general principles of a bill is something of a non-event. There was general agreement in the Local Government Committee that the bill should proceed. However, as Iain Smith argued, it is important that issues are aired to find out whether the Executive can be urged to change its mind about them—it certainly has in some areas—or whether amendments will be needed at stage 2.
What are those issues? Janis Hughes raised the important issue of expertise. How can expertise be retained in health or housing? She was concerned that it would be difficult to retain expertise if there is not a deputy ombudsman with particular responsibility for health, for example. Although the Local Government Committee knew about such concerns, it felt that such proposals might not alter the structure of the present system. All that would happen is that another person—another layer—would be put on top and in charge of the public sector ombudsmen. Perhaps we should have considered the structure of the new body more carefully when we took evidence, to find out how expertise could be retained. That would not necessarily mean a deputy layer.
Another concern relates to the wording of the bill. There is concern that, if the investigative role is seen as the main role, that would not allow for an informal procedure, in which a case could be resolved informally before an investigation starts. I take on board what the minister said—that such a procedure will still be allowed—but the ombudsmen were genuinely concerned about that.
Iain Smith argued well on the extent of the investigatory remit and how it should be consistent across all areas. The public should know what to expect from the ombudsman's service, but the ombudsmen currently have different structures and getting consistency will take time. I have an education background and am well aware that we spent a long time talking about the professional role of teachers and how we did not want the ombudsman's role to input into teaching and learning in the curriculum. The area is complex and there was much discussion about it. Consistency is important so that members of the public know what is happening and how they will be treated.
Tricia Marwick made an excellent point about publicity. We must not raise unrealistic expectations. When we consider how to discuss the service and how to make more people aware of it, we should be careful how we put the message across.
I have no hesitation in supporting the bill at stage 1 and I hope that all members will support it.
Members have not really dealt with consultation. The Executive undertook two consultations—that is important—and the committee asked witnesses about the process. They said that the process had been thorough. Every witness who gave written or oral evidence was in favour of the one-stop approach to complaints in the public sector.
Stage 1 consideration of the general principles of a bill is something of a non-event. There was general agreement in the Local Government Committee that the bill should proceed. However, as Iain Smith argued, it is important that issues are aired to find out whether the Executive can be urged to change its mind about them—it certainly has in some areas—or whether amendments will be needed at stage 2.
What are those issues? Janis Hughes raised the important issue of expertise. How can expertise be retained in health or housing? She was concerned that it would be difficult to retain expertise if there is not a deputy ombudsman with particular responsibility for health, for example. Although the Local Government Committee knew about such concerns, it felt that such proposals might not alter the structure of the present system. All that would happen is that another person—another layer—would be put on top and in charge of the public sector ombudsmen. Perhaps we should have considered the structure of the new body more carefully when we took evidence, to find out how expertise could be retained. That would not necessarily mean a deputy layer.
Another concern relates to the wording of the bill. There is concern that, if the investigative role is seen as the main role, that would not allow for an informal procedure, in which a case could be resolved informally before an investigation starts. I take on board what the minister said—that such a procedure will still be allowed—but the ombudsmen were genuinely concerned about that.
Iain Smith argued well on the extent of the investigatory remit and how it should be consistent across all areas. The public should know what to expect from the ombudsman's service, but the ombudsmen currently have different structures and getting consistency will take time. I have an education background and am well aware that we spent a long time talking about the professional role of teachers and how we did not want the ombudsman's role to input into teaching and learning in the curriculum. The area is complex and there was much discussion about it. Consistency is important so that members of the public know what is happening and how they will be treated.
Tricia Marwick made an excellent point about publicity. We must not raise unrealistic expectations. When we consider how to discuss the service and how to make more people aware of it, we should be careful how we put the message across.
I have no hesitation in supporting the bill at stage 1 and I hope that all members will support it.
In the same item of business
The Minister for Finance and Public Services (Mr Andy Kerr):
Lab
As the minister with responsibility for public services, I especially welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The bill i...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I seek clarification from the minister. I am confused about what will happen if someone complains about a social worker. Will they complain to the Scottish S...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I will try to address that point now and perhaps follow it up by correspondence. In the first instance, the internal measures and mechanisms that are availab...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Mr Keith Harding (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
I am about to make a comment that the Presiding Officer will not hear often from an MSP. I am disappointed that I have been allocated 12 minutes to speak in ...
The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services (Peter Peacock):
Lab
So are we. Laughter.
Mr Harding:
Con
It's the way he tells them.The truth is that a serious issue is involved in the way that we use our parliamentary time. This morning, we are to use two and a...
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
The member will be aware of the evidence that was taken by the Health and Community Care Committee, which showed that bodies such as the Mental Welfare Commi...
Mr Harding:
Con
I thank Janis Hughes for repeating some of the evidence that was given to the Health and Community Care Committee. The Conservatives took that evidence into ...
Iain Smith (North-East Fife) (LD):
LD
Like other members who have spoken, I am concerned about the amount of time that I have been allocated. I assure the Presiding Officer that I do not intend t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
We will be finished this morning by about 11.40—which is 50 minutes early. I ask the business managers to take note of that.
Iain Smith:
LD
Thank you, Presiding Officer.This is an important bill, which merits a decent stage 1 debate. I hope that we have such a debate, even if we do not fill the t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I call Trish Godman, who may if she wishes have an infinity of time. However, it is my intention to suspend the meeting at about 11.40.
Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab):
Lab
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 ...
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Trish Godman on her speech. She has taken seven minutes, which might cut my time by about two minutes. She raised some of the points that I wa...
Dr Sylvia Jackson (Stirling) (Lab):
Lab
At this stage of the debate, it is difficult to be original, but I will try my best.Members have not really dealt with consultation. The Executive undertook ...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Members may think that the bill is fairly straightforward, but we should not forget those who are pursuing complaints in the system. As Sylvia Jackson spoke,...
Trish Godman:
Lab
I have a point of clarification. My understanding is that the purpose of the one-stop shop is precisely to overcome such problems. We will not identify deput...
Mary Scanlon:
Con
Yes, so did I. My evidence comes from the Mental Welfare Commission and others who felt that, when the commission examined a complaint, it examined it as a w...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
Having just got used to speaking for a lot less time than usual, I will try, primarily in the interests of my colleagues' well-being, not to be tempted by th...
Dr Sylvia Jackson:
Lab
What is the member's view of what the minister said about the broader interpretation of the word "maladministration" and of the difficulties in some areas, p...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
I accept that there are difficulties in taking wider views, but if our primary objective is to ensure that there are first-class public services, we should r...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am impressed by the work that the Local Government Committee has done. We have received yet another stag...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Before we move to closing speeches, I ask members who want to speak in the next debate—the mini-debate on procedures—to be in the chamber an hour early, at 1...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I welcome the bill. It is a great step forward to bring several ombudsmen's tasks together in one group. The bill also goes some way towards widening and inc...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill for the reasons that Keith Harding set out. The bill is not particularly controversial. I have a few brief points...
Mr Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
What issues would the member like to debate in the chamber?
Murdo Fraser:
Con
We could talk about the state of the national health service and the fall in the number of nurses in Scotland that was announced last week. We could talk abo...
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I was caught short by Murdo Fraser's brevity.On this occasion, I have a certain sympathy with the decision to debate the matter for only so long because ther...
The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services (Peter Peacock):
Lab
Tricia Marwick had the courtesy to send us a note to explain why she was leaving the debate. I am sorry that she is unwell.I welcome the all-party support fo...