Chamber
Plenary, 31 Jan 2002
31 Jan 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill: Stage 1
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 increasing the powers of the ombudsmen.
In my brief time as an MP and my rather longer time as a councillor, I formed the view that there was ombudsmania, as every organisation created an ombudsman post as part of its public relations. Most of those ombudsmen were a complete waste of time because, when any really good issue arose, they said that it did not fall within their remit and that they could not pursue it. If they actually pursued an issue, they almost always came to a conclusion that I thought was contrary to natural justice. It is therefore a good step forward to have one, overarching ombudsman with a strong team.
Nevertheless, there are ways in which the bill could be strengthened, some of which have been mentioned. The bill says that the ombudsman can investigate a complaint
"only if a member of the public claims to have sustained injustice or hardship".
The wording of the ombudsmen's remits in the past sometimes included the words "financial loss", so what we have in the bill is perhaps a bit better. However, it is hard for someone to prove that they have sustained injustice or hardship personally. Why should not a community council or residents association, for example, be able to put in a claim that a council or a health board has made wrong decisions—based on maladministration or whatever—which have been to the detriment of the community? Communities must be considered as well as individuals.
I apologise for coming late to this debate. One of my regrets in life is that I am no longer a member of the Local Government Committee, which I greatly enjoyed. My colleague, Iain Smith, does a very good job. However, the reduction in the membership of committees has had serious effects. I may, therefore, have missed something.
I find section 5(4) fairly incomprehensible or stupid. Why can the ombudsman investigate something only if
"it has been alleged publicly … that one or more members of the public have sustained injustice or hardship",
when, later in the bill, we are told that the ombudsman is not to mention people's names? That seems peculiar. Subsection (4)(b) says that the ombudsman may investigate a matter only if he or she is satisfied that
"the listed authority in question has taken all reasonable steps to deal with the matter to which the allegation relates."
I presume that, if a local authority or quango persistently refuses to take reasonable steps, the ombudsman will not be able to investigate a matter. I must have missed something. That section does not seem very sensible. We can widen the remit of the ombudsman, and I hope that the matter will be addressed at stage 2.
Another concern is what happens to the ombudsman's report. As I understand it, the ombudsman will report to the ministers and to Parliament, but I have seen nothing in the bill that indicates what Parliament is supposed to do with the report, although I may have missed something. As Trish Godman and others have said, our committees are heavily employed at the moment and the ombudsman's reports may languish somewhere and not be given proper attention. Proper arrangements have to be made in the Parliament to ensure that, if the ombudsman's report criticises an organisation, something is done about it. In the past, there have been examples of people just shrugging off the ombudsman's report.
The bill is a serious attempt to improve the situation and I welcome it, but it, too, could be improved. The ombudsman should have as wide a scope and as few forbidden territories as possible and he or she should have strong powers to straighten out people who are not doing things right. There must be a wide interpretation of maladministration, as the boundary between a case of maladministration and a bad decision is difficult to discern. Some bad decisions are based on a serious bias rather than on an error of judgment and I think that the ombudsman should be able to examine such cases.
I support the bill and hope that the committee will improve it in its next stage.
In my brief time as an MP and my rather longer time as a councillor, I formed the view that there was ombudsmania, as every organisation created an ombudsman post as part of its public relations. Most of those ombudsmen were a complete waste of time because, when any really good issue arose, they said that it did not fall within their remit and that they could not pursue it. If they actually pursued an issue, they almost always came to a conclusion that I thought was contrary to natural justice. It is therefore a good step forward to have one, overarching ombudsman with a strong team.
Nevertheless, there are ways in which the bill could be strengthened, some of which have been mentioned. The bill says that the ombudsman can investigate a complaint
"only if a member of the public claims to have sustained injustice or hardship".
The wording of the ombudsmen's remits in the past sometimes included the words "financial loss", so what we have in the bill is perhaps a bit better. However, it is hard for someone to prove that they have sustained injustice or hardship personally. Why should not a community council or residents association, for example, be able to put in a claim that a council or a health board has made wrong decisions—based on maladministration or whatever—which have been to the detriment of the community? Communities must be considered as well as individuals.
I apologise for coming late to this debate. One of my regrets in life is that I am no longer a member of the Local Government Committee, which I greatly enjoyed. My colleague, Iain Smith, does a very good job. However, the reduction in the membership of committees has had serious effects. I may, therefore, have missed something.
I find section 5(4) fairly incomprehensible or stupid. Why can the ombudsman investigate something only if
"it has been alleged publicly … that one or more members of the public have sustained injustice or hardship",
when, later in the bill, we are told that the ombudsman is not to mention people's names? That seems peculiar. Subsection (4)(b) says that the ombudsman may investigate a matter only if he or she is satisfied that
"the listed authority in question has taken all reasonable steps to deal with the matter to which the allegation relates."
I presume that, if a local authority or quango persistently refuses to take reasonable steps, the ombudsman will not be able to investigate a matter. I must have missed something. That section does not seem very sensible. We can widen the remit of the ombudsman, and I hope that the matter will be addressed at stage 2.
Another concern is what happens to the ombudsman's report. As I understand it, the ombudsman will report to the ministers and to Parliament, but I have seen nothing in the bill that indicates what Parliament is supposed to do with the report, although I may have missed something. As Trish Godman and others have said, our committees are heavily employed at the moment and the ombudsman's reports may languish somewhere and not be given proper attention. Proper arrangements have to be made in the Parliament to ensure that, if the ombudsman's report criticises an organisation, something is done about it. In the past, there have been examples of people just shrugging off the ombudsman's report.
The bill is a serious attempt to improve the situation and I welcome it, but it, too, could be improved. The ombudsman should have as wide a scope and as few forbidden territories as possible and he or she should have strong powers to straighten out people who are not doing things right. There must be a wide interpretation of maladministration, as the boundary between a case of maladministration and a bad decision is difficult to discern. Some bad decisions are based on a serious bias rather than on an error of judgment and I think that the ombudsman should be able to examine such cases.
I support the bill and hope that the committee will improve it in its next stage.
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...