CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
Wednesday 5 March 2025, 4th Meeting 2025, Session 6,
The Convener: Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions.
Scottish Public Service Ombudsman (PE1964)
The first of those is PE1964 - committee colleagues might recall our discussing it at some length - which was lodged by Accountability Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order 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.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 15 May 2024 - it does not feel like it was as long ago as that, as I can remember the conversation quite vividly - when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration Committee.
The Scottish Government has reiterated its view that an independent review of the SPSO, including a review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, is not required - colleagues might recall that that is all in relation to the fact that it has been in existence for 20 years and no review has ever actually taken place. The submission highlights the evolution of the SPSO’s functions and scope since its inception, stating that its powers and responsibilities have not remained static. The Scottish Government also highlights the existing accountability and scrutiny functions. The submission reiterates that the Scottish Government does not have the available resources or capacity to initiate and take forward an independent review due to existing commitments and competing legislative priorities.
The petitioner’s written submission of February last year called for Accountability Scotland to present oral evidence on what an independent review should consist of. Since then, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has held a call for views on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and has taken oral evidence from Accountability Scotland, alongside other stakeholders, so that opportunity has been afforded. It also took evidence from the SPSO. In her evidence to the committee, the ombudsman shared options for how an independent external review could operate. She said that, although a review would be attractive, there would be costs involved and stated the importance of defining the remit of and outcomes from any such review.
The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has subsequently written to the ombudsman to share its observations. That correspondence raised a number of points, including a lack of available performance data, levels of customer satisfaction and neutrality in external evaluation. It also highlighted the SPSO’s suggestion that it might be time to reflect on the way that the Scottish public scrutinises the SPSO and proposed that the Finance and Public Administration Committee could have a larger role in scrutinising the accountable officer. Since the petition was last considered, the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee was established. It also took evidence from the SPSO in February this year. Its role is to review and develop a framework for Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supported bodies, and it is expected to sit until 30 September this year.
Do colleagues have any comments?
Fergus Ewing (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP):
Thank you for that full exposition of what has happened since the petition was lodged on 7 September 2022 - nearly two and a half years ago. As you described, there has been fairly detailed consideration by this committee and other committees as a result of Accountability Scotland bringing the issue to Parliament, so there has been a good airing of many of the issues involved. I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioners.
However, in the light of everything that you have said - in particular, the fact that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recently held a call for views and took evidence to consider the performance of the ombudsman and how that has been evaluated and improved, and that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee has been established to review and develop a framework for SPCB supported bodies - I think that we have ensured that the petition has been properly scrutinised by Parliament.
I add that, having looked at the 2002 act, in particular section 16, I see that, as I alluded to in the evidence session last September, the ombudsman has no power to award any specific remedy to any individual, despite the fact that it has the power under section 16 to issue special reports where there has been a “sustained injustice or hardship”, but it does not then have any power to recommend that the body that caused the harm should issue any compensation.
I mention that on the record because it seems to me to be a lacuna. To be fair, if somebody goes to the SPCB seeking justice and all they get is, “Well, your complaint is upheld”, they might well feel that that is unsatisfactory, especially in the most serious of cases where there has been injustice and hardship.
Although I think that we should close the petition, I expect that the supported bodies committee might be asked to consider the matter along with the rest of its considerations.
The Convener: Are our colleagues content that we close the petition for the reasons that Mr Ewing gave?
Members indicated agreement