Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Official Report 416KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Whistleblowing in Local Government (PE1488)

There are two current petitions to consider. The first is PE1488 by Pete Gregson, on behalf of Kids not Suits, on whistleblowing in local government.

As members will see, we have some recommendations for actions, but I think that the key action is to seek submissions from organisations that did not respond to the committee’s original request for views. I am afraid that it is a familiar story, but I am sure that all committee members will agree that we need the most comprehensive feedback possible from organisations before we make any final decisions. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Parliamentary Governance) (PE1489)

The second current petition is PE1489, by John McLean, supported by Scottish Ombudsman Watch and Accountability Scotland, on the realignment of parliamentary governance over the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Members will have received a note from the clerk and submissions and for the record I also flag up that I received an email from Mr McLean, asking for a formal delay in the consideration of the petition pending a submission from Accountability Scotland. That is an issue for the whole committee and I welcome members’ views and guidance on whether we decide on the petition today or whether we wait for the further information from that organisation.

Given that the petitioner has made such a request, we should take it on board and perhaps wait until we receive the further submission.

To be honest, I am loth to extend the time limit for Accountability Scotland, which, as I understand it, was represented when Mr McLean presented his petition to the committee. It was aware of the timescales for making submissions to the committee, and I wonder whether agreeing to delay consideration would set a precedent for all organisations that might want to delay a committee decision. As I have said, an Accountability Scotland representative co-chaired the presentation on this petition with Mr McLean, so it knew full well what timescale we were working to. Moreover, I am not sure what additional information Accountability Scotland could provide over and above what Mr McLean has already provided.

I support those comments. The petition makes it clear that it is supported by Scottish Ombudsman Watch and Accountability Scotland. Accountability Scotland must know what is in the petition so why are we delaying it? We should just close it now.

At the moment, I am seeking views on whether we delay consideration or not. I will come back to Chic Brodie’s point when we decide what we are going to do with the petition.

It is important that we get to the bottom of the information that we have not yet received. I fully appreciate other members’ comments that there is a timescale and that we could be creating a precedent but I am open minded on this matter and think it important to get all the information before we reach a conclusion on the petition.

I am happy to go along with John Wilson and Chic Brodie and close down the petition. I think that Accountability Scotland has had ample time to respond—

I am sorry but we have not quite come to that issue. The question is whether we defer the petition and wait for Accountability Scotland’s submission or simply decide on the next steps today.

I do not think that we should defer the petition. Accountability Scotland has had plenty of time.

So there is a clear majority not to defer the petition but to take the decision on it today.

There was also an issue about the treatment of our written evidence. Having spoken to the clerk on the matter, I should explain that the normal practice is to publish all the evidence that is sent to the committee but, in a few situations and often for practical reasons, the Parliament does not publish all the evidence that it receives. The submission in question has not been published because of its length and because it appears to duplicate much of what the petitioners had already submitted. Nevertheless, the next decision is whether the committee wishes to publish everything.

Convener, I would be quite happy to publish it all on the website. For clarification, and because what you have said goes in the Official Report, I add that there have been circumstances in the past in which committees have decided not to publish material because it might be defamatory or contentious. I just wanted to clarify for the record that there might be times when we do not publish all the information that we receive.

It is helpful to clarify that. Are members happy that we publish, notwithstanding John Wilson’s caveat?

Yes, I am certainly happy with that, convener. However, I appreciate the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s consideration of my suggestion that the Scottish Commission for Public Audit could oversee the current arrangements. I take on board the SPCB’s argument that

“legislation provides that the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions is not under the direction or control of any member of the Parliament, any member of the Scottish Government or any member of the SPCB.”

I appreciate Angus MacDonald raising that. For the record, I clarify that I am a member of the corporate body, but in this case, the clerk to the SPCB consulted the other members of the SPCB but did not consult me. That is the correct method because, as I am the convener of this committee, it would not be proper for me to have a role in forming the SPCB’s view. Just for the record, that is the current position.

Although I have supported the closing of the petition, I draw members’ attention to the responses from the SPCB and, in particular, to its response to question 3, which is in paragraph 18:

“Under the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 and the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions, Commissioners etc. Act 2010 the SPCB has statutory functions to undertake in respect of the Ombudsman. These functions have been given to the SPCB by the Parliament and there is no mechanism to delegate these functions to another body or sub-committee.”

Although I have said that we should close the petition, there is an issue in that response to which I take exception. My understanding is that the Parliament determines legislation and which would be the delegated body that would deal with matters that are under parliamentary scrutiny. Although it may be true at present for the SPCB to say that

“there is no mechanism to delegate these functions to another body or sub-committee”,

the Government or Parliament might, at a later date, determine otherwise and take on board Mr MacDonald’s suggestion that the SPSO should come under the scrutiny of another body. That would be determined by Parliament making a change to legislation. That is not clear in the SPCB’s response.

Mr Wilson’s points are correct in terms of legislative competence. Obviously Parliament is supreme and, if it wishes to make a change, it can do so.

We now need to decide how to dispose of the petition. John Wilson has recommended that it should be closed. On the basis that the issues that Mr McLean has raised in his lengthy work—and we should put on the record our thanks for all the effort that he has put into the submissions that he has given because they must have taken a lot of time and effort—have all gone to the SPCB as the appropriate body at this stage, and it does not look as though it is going to accept any of those issues. Mr Wilson has proposed that we close.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Reluctantly agreed.

We will close the petition under rule 15.7, but we put on the record our thanks to Mr McLean, Scottish Ombudsman Watch and Accountability Scotland for the work that they have done in this area.

I therefore formally close the meeting, although I have a couple of minor issues to raise with the committee—

Before we close, convener, could we record our thanks for the great work that has been done by the clerks on the inquiry that we have just completed?

I echo Chic Brodie’s thanks to the clerks for all the work that they have done. It was a lot of work over the months. I also thank the committee members and all the witnesses who gave help during the past 10 months.

Meeting closed at 11:54.