This Petition reflects a broad spectrum of concerns relating to Public Complaints. These encompass Public Service Providers (PSPs), SPSO and Parliamentary Governance bodies. For simplification, only those organisations, processes and individuals encountered by the prime Petitioner have been referenced. No positive results were achieved for a myriad of diverse reasons.
Public Service Provider
Matters were discussed with various Councillors; many of whom were sympathetic but all confirmed the limitation of their individual ability to progress matters; noting that support from leaders of the relevant political parties was essential in such matters. The four party leaders were approached: all referred back to the Council Officials that were essentially the subject of the Complaints!
A meeting with the “then” current Chief Executive resulted in a rejection to investigate those formal complaints laid before them or to have the concerns reviewed by an independent external party. Instead a direct request for the SPSO to review such complaints on their behalf was issued.
During this period the Chief Executive was replaced and following discussions with my MSP, who had proved supportive throughout; agreed to take these matters up with the new Chief Executive directly. This failed to positively advance matters, with subsequent correspondence unable to obtain a meeting or agreement to undertake an independent external review. Rather, it resulted in an unrealistic claim that all complaints had been "exhausted": contrary to the evidence provided by that organization. Regretfully for the sake of this process, my MSP was promoted within Government causing the loss of his support.
Scottish Public Service Ombudsman
Delaying six months after the PSP request, the SPSO reverted: noting they were unable to undertake such a review, as the PSP had never implemented any approved investigation procedures. A situation I had advised to both Chief Executives and the SPSO from the start. The PSP thereafter continued to refuse a formal investigation as proscribed by their procedures yet the SPSO refused to direct the PSP to meet their obligations?
Engagement with the SPSO readily identified serious matters of concern relating to multiple aspects of failure of Due Diligence. Discussions with MSP's upon the subsequent refusal of the Ombudsman to engage on the matters raised with his office. These included claims of systemic maladministration and other serious failures of Governance within the SPSO but proved only marginally beneficial.
Parliamentary Governance
Attempts to bring to the attention of the SPCB our claims for consideration of an unfit for purpose role of the Ombudsman were ignored when they addressed his re-appointment. Later, a request for guidance from the PPC was sought; vis-a-vis numerous petitions laid before that committee: Regrettably the SPCB guidance provided to both the LG&RC and PPC did not accurately reflect upon the best evidence and could be subject to reasonable question. This proved seriously detrimental to the subsequent outcomes of these multiple Petitioners.
After significant correspondence, all Officials and Committee members of the SPCB and LG&RC, these bodies were provided an “Argument” (12 pages) & “Strategic Plan Rebuttal” (9 pages) respectively for consideration and possible corrective action. Each document defining the shortfalls in application of their particular Parliamentary remits. This un-necessarily resulted in an extended period of unconstructive correspondence without generating any of the positive results expected.
Rejection by SPCB & LG&RC served as the catalyst for a comprehensive investigation into better understanding SPSO Parliamentary Governance - an essential pre-requisite to establish why the Ombudsman is unaccountable to Parliament; a state both unintentional and improper in legislation.