Local Government and Regeneration Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Official Report 418KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Review) (PE1405)

The next item of business is consideration of PE1405, by Mr Andrew Muir. The petition was lodged on 12 October 2011 and referred to the committee by the Public Petitions Committee on 15 November 2011. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to request the Scottish Government to conduct a fit-for-purpose review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

It is important to point out that the SPSO is directly accountable to the Parliament through the laying of annual reports and other reports. In the exercise of its functions the SPSO is independent of the Scottish Government, members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. However, the committee has agreed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to set out the reasons for his request for a review of the SPSO. To that end, I welcome the petitioner, Mr Andrew Muir, to the committee. Mr Muir, do you want to start with an opening statement?

I have a speech of about three to five minutes, if that is okay.

That is fine.

I thank the committee for inviting me to speak. I came up yesterday from Birmingham, which is where I work.

I do not think that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is fit for purpose. Three separate organisations—Scottish ombudsman watch, Integrity4Scotland and accountability Scotland—have been campaigning for a review of the SPSO. Those organisations have up to 100 members, each of whom has a grievance against the ombudsman. I asked the members of those organisations to give me some examples, and I have three for the committee. Member 1 said:

“I have had a terrible time with my dealings with the SPSO with regards to the misdiagnosis of breast cancer.”

Member 2 said:

“In 2009 I submitted an extensive complaint to SPSO about CPNA’s very flawed consultation performance over a five year time period but Jim Martin continued to dismiss me as time barred, completely missing the point of my complaint.”

Member 3 said:

“I complained about a school inspection. After 16 months within the SPSO and 8 months case adjudication it was simply deleted.”

There are many more. In addition, nine public petitions against the SPSO were submitted last year but were simply closed.

I do not believe that the quality of staff in the SPSO is high enough. They do not have a passion for investigation and they look desperately for ways to close cases or time bar them, after which they count such cases as successes. I do not think that it is necessarily suitable to use a retired doctor for a national health service case as he might be biased in favour of former colleagues. The SPSO needs to employ people who enjoy investigating and are independent.

The desire to close cases prematurely can be summed up by Jim Martin’s comments in a recent report:

“I don’t advertise my services. If I did, I’d be swamped.”

There are many public sector organisations in Scotland, and the public sector is important not just in terms of the number of employees, but in terms of its power and financial muscle. I do not think that the SPSO is imbuing a culture of change in those organisations and making the complaint handling process in those organisations open and transparent. My experience of several organisations is that they are arrogant, slow to handle cases, uncommunicative, unapproachable, money orientated and unjust.

For the record, I will briefly summarise my own complaint. In 2006, my wife, Claire Muir, was put in a psychiatric hospital even though she has no mental illness. The detention process was illegal and she suffered inhuman and degrading treatment. The same people who detained her appeared at every mental health tribunal to ensure that she remained on compulsory treatment orders. She was released from care after 15 months when I eventually managed to obtain a change of psychiatrist.

When I took my wife’s case to the SPSO it used every excuse: “Oh, Mr Muir, it’s time barred” and, “Somebody else has looked at it.” It said that the Scottish Social Services Council had looked at the case and that it must be right, and that the case had been through the courts and the mental health tribunals. The SPSO did not want to get to the bottom of the case and just threw it out. Now I am angry and frustrated and my wife has been stigmatised and traumatised.

I would like three things. First, I would like a full, independent review to monitor the adequacy, effectiveness and justice of the SPSO’s rulings—not just its financial dealings but its decisions. Secondly, I would like cases such as mine to be reopened. There are up to 100 people in the organisations that I mentioned. Perhaps some young graduates or unemployed people with investigative minds could be employed to get to the bottom of our cases and give us justice. Thirdly, some members of those organisations have been going a lot longer than I have—up to nine years since the start—and it would be nice for them to have a chance to talk about it, as they have much more knowledge. I have been going for only five years.

Thank you. We now move to questions. It is probably best if members try to stay away from individual cases—it would make things difficult if we were to ask about specifics.

Good morning, Mr Muir. I will play devil’s advocate. When Mr Martin took office in May 2009, a huge number of cases remained open. I have heard Mr Martin elsewhere, and he said that the SPSO often could not say no and would not close a case. It is pointless if, rather than close a case and tell folk what the situation is, the ombudsman sits on it. That is as unjust as closing a case. Will you comment on that?

Why does the SPSO close cases? The reasons that it gives—for example the time barring rule, which I do not really like anyway—do not seem fair to the public.

I will play devil’s advocate again. Folk go to the ombudsman because they have gone through a number of other processes by which they have not gained satisfaction. There is a difference between an injustice and a dissatisfaction. A lot of folk will get answers from the ombudsman that they do not particularly like. Would you like to comment on that?

These are injustices—they are not just dissatisfactions. That is true in my case, and other people to whom I have spoken are angry. The SPSO says in its letters, “I’m sure you’re going to be disappointed, Mr Muir,” but it is just a total injustice.

The bodies that we go through before we get to the ombudsman waste a lot of time; they are quite happy to time bar us by dragging out the procedures. They take ages, and are very uncommunicative. It is not backwards and forwards: you get a letter, and then another one a few months later, and by the time you know it you have missed all your deadlines, which you did not know about at the start. You are too busy being distressed by your own experience to know about time bar rules, and they do not tell you at the start. I think that you need to be given as much time as you like.

When you say, “as much time as you like,” do you think that a case should go on ad infinitum?

Not ad infinitum, but five years in my case and nine years in other cases is fairly typical. There is just so much intransigence between the public sector and the private sector: they are like two different species. You just cannot speak to them—I cannot speak to anybody.

There are a load of people in the NHS, for instance, who say, “Don’t speak to Mr Muir.” The director of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said, “No member of staff must speak to him.” That shows how bad it is. It takes months to get an answer. That is why the process does not need to be time barred unless it takes more than 10 years. It just takes so long.

Good morning, Mr Muir. I am very interested in this subject. You want the Government to carry out

“an independent ‘fit for purpose’ review”

because the SPSO is set up by the Parliament. How do you see an investigative body being selected, bearing it in mind that you are asking the Scottish Government to initiate that? As the convener pointed out, the body that you are complaining about—the SPSO—is independent of the Government. How do you see that all fitting together and that consultation proceeding?

If the Scottish Government wants Scotland to be independent, it has to be seen to be a fair country. I would like independent individuals with investigative minds to look at old SPSO cases to see whether it has done a good job. It just has to be independent. I am sure that you can find independent people in Scotland who are talented and can do that.

I understand the concept of independence once those people are in place, but do you see the Scottish Government or the Parliament appointing them? How will it work, to get at the independence concept?

It is up to the Government to create a nice society.

I think that there is a challenge around the specific wording of the petition. It appears to me that the Scottish Government does not have the powers to do what you ask. I guess the initial question is whether it should be done, and whether the Parliament should find a way.

Good morning, Mr Muir, and thank you for your opening statement. You referred to the other petitions that the previous session’s Local Government and Communities Committee closed. That was done on the basis that those petitions were essentially asking for exactly what your petition is seeking. Is that the case?

I think that that was the case. The petitioners would know better than I do why that was so, but there were some along the same lines that were seeking a review. I do not know why they were closed. We are obviously delighted that I am here and have a chance to speak today.

There is only one other aspect that might be of interest, which is the issue of the Scottish Parliament. Now that we have a majority Government, is there any concern that there may not be the same checks and balances that existed previously when we had minority or coalition Governments?

I am afraid that I am a bit concerned about the Scottish National Party. It is very uncommunicative, and possibly even slightly a dictatorship. I have managed to have contact with the other three parties, but the SNP is pretty bad. I think that it is just moving on to the independence debate and is less willing to speak to Mr Public.

My question was more about majority government of whichever political persuasion. By definition, there are perhaps not the checks and balances in place that were envisaged when devolution was considered, as no one thought that such a situation could arise.

Yes, I agree with you on that. Now that there is a majority, there is less scope for debate.

Just for information, I point out that the committee that decided not to close your petition without taking any evidence from you and that unanimously agreed to allow you to come along today and give evidence has a majority of SNP members, but I will try not to take offence at your comments.

10:30

Thank you—I have no idea which political parties committee members are from.

The Parliament has a majority SNP make-up, and this committee is the same. We agreed unanimously to take your evidence.

We should go beyond that to say that there is no influence by political parties on the ombudsman either. That is one of the reasons why he is independent.

I see that there are no further questions from members. That being so, I thank Mr Muir for his time. We will discuss the evidence in private, and take evidence from the SPSO on a number of issues in the near future, at which point I am sure that we will cover some of the issues that have been raised today.

10:31 Meeting suspended.

10:35 On resuming—