Click below to see the clip of the review proceedings.
This is "Scottish Democracy" in action. Jackson Carlaw's calm voice takes any feeling out of the meeting.
We have made a transcript of the meeting by capturing the subtitles, and then using Google's image translating ability to reproduce the text. It reads [we think] as follows:
The next petition, PE1964, was lodged by Accountability Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament Services Ombudsman, to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, assess the quality of its work and decisions and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.
The petition was last considered by us on 7 December, when we agreed to write to the SPSO, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body [of which Jackson Carlaw is a member].
The SPCB's response details the financial and governance accountability structures that exist between the SPCB and the SPSO, noting that there have been no adverse external audit. The corporate body states that, although committees have a role, it would expect that committee scrutiny work focuses on how the SPSO is carrying out its functions at a high level and should not aim to review, direct or control specific decisions or actions, which are properly matters for the SPSO.
The SPCB acknowledges that there might be scope for a review by the Scottish Government on how well the legislation is working and on any areas that could be improved but, given the independent role of the SPSO and the assurances that it has that the office is working well, it does not consider that there is a need to undertake an independent review into the quality of the SPSO's work or the decisions that it has taken or to investigate the complaints.
The SPSO's response to the committee details its approach to decision making, highlighting the option for complainants to request a review of the decisions that are made by it.
The Scottish Government's written submission states its view that an independent review on the terms that are suggested in the petition is not required and that it does not have the available resources that are required to undertake such a review.
The petitioner has responded to the written submissions, focusing on the question whether an independent review would interfere with the SPSO's independence. The petitioner argues that an independent investigation of the SPSO would strengthen it, because the nature of truly independent opinion would be out with any influence of the ombudsman, the Parliament and Scottish ministers.
The petitioner claims that the SPSO is using its discretion to deny the majority of complainants a fair and impartial investigation.
Their submission states:
"There is only one way to determine if the SPSO is protecting our human rights as it claims it is, that's an independent review of individual cases."
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action.
I wonder whether we could write to the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, Citizens Advice Scotland, Patient Advice and Support Service and Shelter Scotland, seeking their views on the action that is called for in the petition.
Does the committee agree to do that?
They did.
Noted that the SPCB consists of five members: the Presiding Officer and four elected members.
Briefing notes for the committee are prepared by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe).