Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2853, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill.
I presume that this will be a fairly short debate to seek Parliament's agreement to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill.
I want first to deal with a formal matter. In accordance with rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty has signified her consent to the bill in so far as it affects her interests.
The Executive has a continuing commitment to ensuring modern, open and accountable government that delivers first-class public services for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill is a further example of the Executive's continuing commitment to doing that. Devolution has again proved to be of benefit to the people of Scotland. It has enabled the Executive to legislate to establish ombudsman arrangements that are specifically tailored to Scotland's needs. Through the bill, Scotland will create a public sector complaints system that is on a par with the most progressive systems elsewhere and that will provide a lead for the rest of the UK.
The Local Government Committee's stage 1 report has provided the focus for developing the bill since its introduction. The report supported the general principles of the bill but identified some areas in which the committee felt that it could be improved. I am pleased to say that the Executive was able to respond with a range of amendments that addressed the concerns that were expressed by the committee. For the benefit of the chamber, I will briefly summarise the main amendments that have been made to the bill since stage 1.
During the stage 1 debate, the Executive indicated that it would consider changing the title of the main office holder created by the bill to the Scottish public services ombudsman, and we lodged appropriate amendments to do that at stage 2.
The Local Government Committee questioned whether the bill sufficiently safeguarded and enhanced the ombudsman's abilities to resolve complaints by informal means. Again, the Executive lodged amendments at stage 2 to make specific provision for informal resolution of complaints.
Concern was expressed by the existing ombudsmen that the bill did not sufficiently meet the principles of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—otherwise known as the TUPE regulations. The Executive lodged appropriate amendments at stage 2 to put that matter beyond doubt.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee sought clarification about the private and public nature of the functions of some bodies. The Executive lodged an amendment to the bill at stage 2 to address that matter.
I am pleased that the Local Government Committee agreed to all the amendments that were lodged by the Executive at stage 2.
A further concern that was raised in the Local Government Committee report was that the bill did not provide a consistent investigatory remit for the ombudsman across all the bodies within his or her jurisdiction. Today, the Parliament has debated and agreed Executive amendments that reflect the comments that were made by Iain Smith and address the concern to which I have referred.
The bill has benefited from the development that has been achieved in open dialogue with the Parliament. I thank Trish Godman, the Local Government Committee and the clerks to that committee for their work and their valuable contribution to improving the bill in its passage through Parliament. They have helped to improve the statutory framework that is before us today.
The stage 1 debate on the bill confirmed that members broadly welcomed the Executive's proposals for reforming the public sector complaints system. I hope that the chamber will now add its endorsement to what I consider to be another good example of the Executive working in partnership with the Parliament to produce legislation that seeks positively to serve the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill provides a strong platform from which the new ombudsman will no doubt endeavour to improve further our already highly regarded public sector complaints system. I commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Bill be passed.
I thank the minister for replying to my questions and I look forward to receiving written replies.
On the whole, the SNP welcomes the bill. It makes a lot of sense to have a one-stop shop for the sort of procedure that the public can understand and can access quickly and more easily. I am almost sure that the minister gave us assurances on this point at stage 2, but I urge him to advertise the changes in procedure, perhaps with a booklet or leaflet that the public can access in post offices, shops, libraries or local government buildings. It is important that the changes are advertised so that the public are aware that the Scottish Parliament's intention is to make the system much easier, more open and transparent for those who want to express their concerns. I look forward to the minister doing that work to ensure that the public are aware of the changes and of how easy it is to access the ombudsman.
The SNP is thankful that the minister has acted on the concerns about the TUPE regulations that were raised at stages 1 and 2. I am sure that the staff will be most grateful for that.
My only concern is about the change of name. Everyone said that they would like a more politically correct name, but I am sure that we can all live with the new name. I welcome the bill and the SNP will support it in its entirety.
The Conservatives also welcome the bill, which should, as intended, establish a simpler and modernised, one-stop shop, public sector complaints system. We are pleased that the minister took on board many of the comments and amendments that were suggested by the Local Government Committee, and we are pleased to support the bill.
I am sorry to make such a brief speech, but we have discussed the bill at length in committee. [Applause.]
I have never heard such warm applause.
How does one follow that? I could say that that was the best speech that I have ever heard Keith Harding make, but that would be a little cruel.
The Liberal Democrats also welcome and support the bill. It is a sensible measure, which has been improved, as Peter Peacock said, by the good dialogue between the Local Government Committee and ministers throughout the process. That is a good example of how the Parliament's committees and the Executive can work together to introduce and approve good legislation.
It is valuable for the public that we now have a one-stop complaints shop for their concerns about public services. Important aspects of the bill include, for example, the fact that there is no need for an MSP or councillor to be involved in referring a complaint. Members of the public can go straight to the ombudsman with their complaints. That is an important step forward, particularly in relation to the parliamentary ombudsman; at Westminster, the public still need to go through an MP to make a complaint.
We have managed to ensure that the informal resolution processes that the ombudsmen all operate are clearly embedded in the bill and will continue as the main way in which complaints are dealt with. It is important that there is an option for public bodies themselves to refer a matter to the ombudsman when they have reached an impasse with a member of the public. Those of us who have been elected members for many years are aware of the problems that can arise when a member of the public and a local authority cannot reach agreement on whether a problem has been resolved. It is useful that the ombudsman will have the opportunity to consider such issues.
The improvements that we have made at stage 3 in relation to consistency are also important. The bill is now a good example of legislation that will benefit the public in Scotland and all of us in public service. It will ensure that complaints from the public are properly identified, addressed and considered, without there being artificial barriers about what constitutes administration and what does not.
I welcome the bill and urge the Parliament to support it.
As Keith Harding said, the policy objective was to establish a one-stop shop, headed by the new Scottish public services ombudsman, which would be open, accountable and easily accessible to all and which would have the trust of the Scottish public. There is no doubt that we need a simpler and more effective means for members of the public to make complaints about maladministration in the public sector.
I want to mention a couple of changes that have been implemented by the Executive, which was persuaded to make those changes by the Local Government Committee. The committee agreed that existing expertise needed to be retained, but we did not believe that the most appropriate way of doing that was to designate a deputy ombudsman's post. There is no need, for example, to have a deputy ombudsman for health or for housing; to do so would be to defeat the purpose of the bill.
The committee considered the confidentiality of information that is provided by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and asked that safeguards should be put in place to ensure that applicants are protected, so that the quality and extent of information that is provided is not adversely affected. The minister has written to me with assurances of those safeguards.
The committee welcomed the assurances from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on retaining the independence of the ombudsman's post. We are satisfied that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. We were concerned that conflicts of interest could arise because the pay, allowances and pensions for the ombudsman are determined by the SPCB, while at the same time the SPCB is liable to investigation by the ombudsman. As I said, we are satisfied with the assurances that the minister has given.
The committee was concerned about the lack of publicity concerning the ombudsman. We all know from our surgeries that the information that is available to the public is woeful. It is difficult to find and not altogether clear. Most people who come to MSPs with complaints that are quite clearly for the ombudsman have never heard of an ombudsman and have never used such procedures. We therefore welcome the inclusion in the bill of the requirement to publicise the service.
I hope that the Executive will remember that it is not only information on where to find the ombudsman that is important. Information must also be made available about the ombudsman's powers, whether oral or written evidence is acceptable, whether people can take a representative with them when they are interviewed and whether they must exhaust the local complaints procedure before they approach the ombudsman. In other words, as Sandra White said, there must be as much information as possible and in as many places as possible. I am pleased that the Executive has seen the sense in supporting the committee's position on publicity. The bill will be effective only if there is easy, accessible information about the complaints system.
The committee sought assurances from the minister on staff transfer arrangements. Staff must be protected, and we have noted the minister's assurance regarding safeguards for staff.
The changes that were accepted by the Executive at the behest of the committee have improved the bill. It is right that we have a well-advertised one-stop shop for a public services ombudsman. I urge members to support the bill.
I welcome the elements of the bill that are designed to procure accessibility and the mechanisms that have been identified for the investigation of complaints.
When I was reading through the bill, it occurred to me that there was no good reason why the office of the ombudsman should be located in Edinburgh. However, I noticed from some recent advertisements for jobs in the ombudsman's office that the assumption was being made that the office should be in Edinburgh. I can think of a number of good reasons why the office should not be in Edinburgh. In fact, there are strong arguments for such offices to be relocated to other parts of Scotland. Jackie Baillie and I would be absolutely delighted to have the office in West Dunbartonshire, and other members might be able to make an adequate case for their areas. When we establish such offices, there should almost be a prejudice against locating them in Edinburgh, rather than centralising everything in the capital city. I urge the minister to give that point serious consideration.
I welcome the all-party support for the bill, which is a sensible measure to improve the complaints system in Scotland. I commend Keith Harding on the brevity of his speech and trust that that will be repeated on future occasions.
I take seriously the point that Trish Godman and Sandra White made. Having approved the new arrangements, it is important that we make the people of Scotland clearly aware of what is now available to them, what the powers of the ombudsman are and what the access arrangements are. The points that Trish Godman raised, such as being able to take a representative to an interview or being able to complain orally as well as in writing, are important. The importance that the Parliament attaches to those matters will be made clear to the new ombudsman's office.
I share Sandra White's slight anxieties about the name. We considered a range of different names, but could not find a better one. I understand that the name is of Scandinavian origin and is gender neutral, despite its appearance.
Trish Godman made a point about the ombudsman's freedom to appoint deputies as he or she sees fit, and about not constraining the ombudsman to have specialists in health, local government or other aspects of public service. I have no doubt that specialisms will emerge from the office, but that will not be required by the bill. There will be freedom for the ombudsman to make decisions in that respect.
Des McNulty commented on the location of the office, and I think that an orderly queue will form from different parts of Scotland in respect of where the office might be. However, on the general point about relocation, the Executive's policy is that consideration should be given to entirely new offices being established probably outwith Edinburgh. The question arises of whether the office is new or an amalgamation of existing offices. That said, I will consider the point that Des McNulty made. If it were decided to open up the question of the office's location, there are established procedures to follow.
There are many ways by which bureaucrats can wriggle out of relocation, but the minister should regard the idea that the office is not new with considerable concern. Under the previous Conservative Administration, there was a pattern of offices ending up in Stirling, which was an interesting variation on the Edinburgh theme. We should consider such matters seriously. We should identify where the pattern of work is and try to identify an appropriate location that sensibly relocates Government jobs.
I do not think that there is any difference between Des McNulty and the Executive in respect of the principles behind what we seek to do. I think that Des McNulty has lodged a parliamentary question on that point, which is waiting to be answered. I do not want to pre-empt the answer, but there is a question about the independence of the ombudsman's office and the extent to which the Executive can direct it in such matters. Nonetheless, I take his general point and wish to see the continuation of the relocation of jobs throughout Scotland, not least to the north and west of Scotland, and to all other parts over time.
As others have mentioned, the bill is designed to improve the public complaints procedures, to create a one-stop shop and a streamlined system for the public to make complaints about failures in public service duties by public authorities and to create easier referral arrangements for complaints to be made. It is designed so that public bodies use the complaints system to improve their service constantly, use their internal complaints procedures to examine systems that fail from time to time, and improve those systems and eliminate faults in the public service as much as possible. The bill is part of our drive for better and more responsive public services in Scotland, and I commend it to the Parliament.