Click below to see the clip of the review proceedings.
The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration Committee.
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:
Jackson Carlaw MSP, Convener:
The petitioner has brought to our attention the fact that the Ombudsman has stated her support for a review of the legislationgoverning the SPSO during the Local Government, Hosuing and Planning Committee's scrutiny of the SPDSO's annual report on 5th December 2023 [see note below]. Her view is that the current legislation is not as adaptable as it should be for the different ways of delivering services and making complaints.
It is worth noting that while the ombudsman has stated her support for a review of the legislation, the petitioner is also calling for an investigation into complaints made against the SPSO and an assessment of the quality of its work. From different starting positions the ombudsman and the petitioner are seeking such a review.
We are aware, and it is important to note that the SPSO's fuctions are independent of the Scottish Parliamentary Body - which met the ombudsman recently - ministers and MSPs to ensure that there is no interference in the decisions that are made.
We are in the slightly unusual position that there has ]never been a review of the ombudsman. In previous evidence there was an expectation that a review would take place at some point of the way in which the arrangements are structured. The Government seems reluctant to undertake the review that the petitioner would like but the ombudsman herself is quite open to the idea that a review should take place.
I wonder whether Mr Torance has a burning suggestion for us.
David Torance MSP, Member:
In the light of the ombudsman's comments would the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will consider undertaking a review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act of 2022 ?
Are we content to do that ?
Fergus Ewing MSP, Member
I add to that suggestion, with which I agree, the fact that any review must be an independent review. It cannot be done by the SPSO, nor should it be done by the Scottish Government. It should be done by somebody who is entirely independent. Given that we are supposed to be in a time of fiscal difficulty and pressure I respectfully ask whether the public get any gain from having an SPSO. That is no imputation on the professionalism of the SPSO, but it is restricted in its powers and remedies. I no longer recommend to any constituents that they go to the SPSO because first, those who go to the SPSO do not get anywhere; secondly they do not get a result; and thirdly, they often end up even more fed up than they were in the first place because they feel that the whole process is, frankly, pointless.
Those sound like harsh words, but should we not be looking to see whether we can prune back some of the public money that is spent on such things and put it into the health service, for example?
Jackson Carlaw MSP, Convener:
Given what you have said, I wonder whether we might also draw the petition to the attention of the Finance and Public Administration committee which is currently undertaking a formal inquiry into office-holders, as part of which it is looking at the whole sweep of the office-holding positions. I know that the corporate body is due to give evidence to that committee, and I have previously - on behalf of the corporate body - raised issues of concern that the corporate body has had when I have presented the Parliament's budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It might be useful for that committee to be aware that the petition exists and that the ombudsman herself is keen on a review, although the Government does not seem minded to pursue one.
Are members content that we take that approach ? We are . . . .
A note re the previous meeting on 28th June 2023, at which the CPPPC agreed to write to the following:
- Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance
- Citizens Advice Scotland
- Patient Advice and Support Service
- Shelter Scotland
Where are the original letters ? Were they actually sent, and if so, where are the replies ?
Indeed it might be asked why these communications were not referred to at this meeting of 15 May 2024 ?
A note re the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee Tuesday, December 5, 2023
The minute records as follows:
The Convener:
I have a couple of questions around the public petition relating to the SPSO, which the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions
Committee is considering. Among other things, the petition calls for an independent review to “establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.”
Given that you are also pushing for legislative change, I would be interested to hear whether you agree that, 20 years after the legislation to set up the SPSO, a review might be required. If so, who do you think should conduct that review?
Rosemary Agnew:
How long have we got? I absolutely and fundamentally think that there should be a review. I have been trying, almost since I came into office, to get that review. There are a number of reasons for that. From a complainer point of view, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 was written at a time when everybody did everything in writing and kept paper files. I do not think that it is adaptable enough, or as adaptable as it should be, for the different ways of delivering services and making complaints. Each time that we have had a new function, something has been added to the act. It is an incredibly messy piece of legislation to read now, and there is something about making it clearer. It is not just lawyers who read legislation.
Within that, though, there are some areas where, as an ombudsman’s service and organisation, we are not keeping up with our colleagues in other areas of the UK and across Europe. That relates to own-initiative investigations, which I will not go back to, because we have talked about them before. There are other things that would help, but they may not be as obvious. It almost goes back to the relationship point about being able to share information differently with other scrutiny and oversight bodies, because as public services become more complex, the scrutiny and oversight of those services becomes quite complicated. There needs to be a review of how those bodies are enabled to work together, because it is often the legislative things that get in the way.
I will leave the point about who should conduct a review to the greaters and betters, but I cannot see that parliamentary scrutiny of our legislation would go amiss.
The Convener:
It would certainly kick things up in the air or get things started, would it not? You mentioned that you are not going to go over the own-initiative investigative powers, and we discussed that when you were here earlier this year. Just to get it all on the record, can you say what you think the ombudsmen in Wales and Northern Ireland, for example, and other international schemes are able to do that you are not able to? Do you have a sense that the lack of own-initiative powers hinders your ability to fulfil your responsibilities?
Rosemary Agnew:
I can investigate a complaint at whatever stage only if it is brought to me. If somebody does not complain, I cannot investigate. Under own-initiative powers, you are able to investigate of your own volition something that is in the public interest. Someone could say, “Can’t you research it now?”. You can, but own - initiative powers and the other things in the act that come with them, such as being able to compel evidence and information, enable you to focus on an issue, a demographic or a theme without having to focus on a particular public body. It also means that you can word an investigation in such a way as to get to the issue that you are trying to look at.
Sometimes, with complaints, you have to go with what the complainer is complaining about.
The benefit of an own-initiative investigation is that you can do one investigation that is cross cutting in one way or another. You do not necessarily have to do this or that, but it can really highlight an issue or underlying themes that may prevent other complaints or help other complaints and complainers. The other benefit is that that is a far more effective use of resources. You might achieve with one investigation what you could not achieve with 10 or 20 complaints.
Fundamentally, the way in which you choose and decide what to investigate ties in with what Niki Maclean said about people who are in vulnerable situations. I am as interested in knowing why some people do not complain and whether the complaints system as a whole serves everybody as it should. You can look at very different issues. To go back to textbook phrases such as “A voice for the voiceless”, own-initiative investigations would give far more of a voice to the voiceless than our being able to look at only the complaints that come to us.
The Convener:
That is certainly a good point: not everybody complains, but there are people who are sitting on something with which they could really do with some help and support. Thanks for unpacking that a bit. It was very helpful.
Whether this actually supports the petition is debateable.