Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next petition, PE1964, was lodged by Accountability Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, investigate complaints made against the SPSO, assess the quality of its work and decisions and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose. The petition was last considered by us on 7 December, when we agreed to write to the SPSO, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, of which, I should commit to the record, I am a member.

The SPCB’s response details the financial and governance accountability structures that exist between the SPCB and the SPSO, noting that there have been no adverse external audit reports to date. The corporate body states that, although committees have a role, it would expect that committee scrutiny work focuses on how the SPSO is carrying out its functions at a high level and should not aim to review, direct or control specific decisions or actions, which are properly matters for the SPSO.

The SPCB acknowledges that there might be scope for a review by the Scottish Government on how well the legislation is working and on any areas that could be improved but, given the independent role of the SPSO and the assurances that it has that the office is working well, it does not consider that there is a need to undertake an independent review into the quality of the SPSO’s work or the decisions that it has taken or to investigate the complaints against it.

The SPSO’s response to the committee details its approach to decision making, highlighting the option for complainants to request a review of the decisions that are made by it.

The Scottish Government’s written submission states its view that an independent review on the terms that are suggested in the petition is not required and that it does not have the available resources that are required to undertake such a review.

The petitioner has responded to the written submissions, focusing on the question whether an independent review would interfere with the SPSO’s independence. The petitioner argues that an independent investigation of the SPSO would strengthen it, because the nature of truly independent opinion would be outwith any influence of the ombudsman, the Parliament and Scottish ministers.

The petitioner claims that the SPSO is using its discretion to deny the majority of complainants a fair and impartial investigation. Their submission states:

“There is only one way to determine if the SPSO is protecting our human rights as it claims it is, that’s an independent review of individual cases.”

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I feel that we are pushing a rock up a hill, given the answers that we have received.

Unless there is any view that we might pursue the matter further, I think that we have to thank the petitioner and say that, unfortunately, the representative bodies that advise the Government, from which the decisions would subsequently emanate, are not advocating a change. Therefore, I feel that we have to close the petition on that basis.

As there are no further comments, are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that, in the light of the fact that we now have a legislative proposition progressing through Parliament, we should invite the petitioner to contribute to that, as suggested.

Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023.

We have received apologies from our colleague Fergus Ewing. As this is the committee’s first meeting since the loss of their mother, we as a committee extend our condolences to both Fergus Ewing and his sister, Annabelle Ewing.

We have also received apologies from Foysol Choudhury, and I am delighted to say that we have back with us our former colleague Paul Sweeney, who is here in a reserve capacity this morning.

We are also joined by our former colleague Tess White, who will be here later, and—making up a galaxy of our regulars—both Jackie Baillie and Monica Lennon. Welcome to both of you and to Paul.

Sadly, party leaders are the bane of committee conveners’ lives, because they are forever removing our colleagues from the committee, and this is our last meeting with Alexander Stewart. I put on record our thanks to Alexander for all his work, particularly in relation to the committee inquiry that we have just done into deliberative democracy. I have had assurances that he will be available to participate in the debate when we bring that report to the Parliament in the autumn. Thank you, Alexander, for all that you have done on the committee.

Thank you for that passionate exposition of the objectives of Alison Dowling’s petition. I invite colleagues to discuss what our next steps might be.

The next petition, PE1947, lodged by Alex O’Kane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 26 October, when we agreed to engage with communities and families that have been directly affected by the issues raised in the petition. The committee also agreed to write to the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, whose written response states that the primary prevention of violence is the most effective and cost-efficient form of prevention. It highlights work by YouthLink Scotland, which found the social return on investment in youth services to be at least three to one, with a note that that work is a fundamental part of any form of violence prevention work. It points to a survey of young people in England and Wales that suggested that one in seven young people had experienced some form of violence, including threats, bullying and low-level violence.

Members will be aware that, last month, members of the committee met an Edinburgh-based youth group, 6VT, and visited Milton in Glasgow to meet the petitioner and families with direct experience of the issues that are raised in the petition. We were joined on that occasion by our parliamentary colleague Bob Doris. It was one of the most engaging, courageous, moving and disturbing exchanges that those of us present have had with members of the public, who, along with their young people who had been the victims of violence, placed their faith in the hands of the committee and gave us visceral descriptions of the experiences that they had endured. I again thank all those who were prepared to do that. Obviously, and clearly, we uncovered a number of issues. Coincidentally, there was a debate in the chamber that same week, and I was able to make some general reference to the experiences that we had heard about on our visit.

This is an issue on which I feel that, given the faith that was placed in us, we are honour bound to take further action. Alexander Stewart, you were also with me on the visit. Would you like to add something?

I should qualify what I said earlier by pointing out that, although we met in Milton, some of the people whom we met had travelled from as far as Cupar in Fife to participate in the discussion. There was a local group that we had hoped to meet that day but, sadly, due to unforeseen circumstances, we were not able to meet. One of the things that I might reflect on with the clerks, if the committee is happy for me to do so, is who might be the most representative body of people that we can bring round the table.

Are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

For the reasons that Mr Stewart has outlined, we thank the petitioner, but we will close the petition.