The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5785, in the name of John Scott, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, on the reappointment of the Scottish public services ombudsman.

As a member of the SPCB reappointment panel, I speak to the motion in my name to invite members to agree to the nomination of Professor Alice Brown for appointment by Her Majesty the Queen for a second term as the Scottish public services ombudsman. To assist members' consideration of the motion, the SPCB has lodged a brief report that is available at the rear of the chamber.

The ombudsman was considered for reappointment by the SPCB sitting as a selection panel. The Presiding Officer was in the chair and an independent assessor was appointed to oversee the process. I am pleased to say that the assessor, Louise Rose, has provided a validation certificate to confirm that the process conformed to good practice and that the ombudsman is being nominated on merit. On the SPCB's behalf, I thank Louise Rose. She brought a wealth of appointment experience to the panel in ensuring that we complied with good practice and that the process was robust and fair.

On being appointed in 2002, the ombudsman had two competing priorities—dealing with continuing and new complaints and the difficult task of amalgamating the then three existing offices into a one-stop shop to give the public easier access to make complaints about maladministration or service failure in the public sector. It is to the credit of the ombudsman, her deputies and her staff that throughout the time of amalgamation, the office continued to be open for business to deal with complaints and inquiries from the public.

The number of complaints and investigations that the ombudsman undertakes has increased considerably since the one-stop shop was established. The ombudsman's remit was also extended following changes to the NHS complaints process and the inclusion of the further and higher education sectors. That has added to the number of complaints.

The ombudsman is uniquely placed to inform debate on issues that affect the public and those who deliver services, as she has a comprehensive overview of what is and is not working well in the delivery of public services. As we know, the ombudsman communicates her findings through individual investigative reports and her annual report. I encourage committees to consider those reports as appropriate and possibly to invite the ombudsman to meet them to discuss emerging trends, so that we can consider a strategic approach to addressing issues.

The ombudsman lays reports of her investigations before Parliament and produces a helpful monthly commentary on the reports that are laid.

Is the member aware that one deficiency of the reports that are presented to the Parliament is the lack of clarity about the internal workings of the ombudsman's office, particularly the length of time the ombudsman can take to deal with cases? I wrote to the ombudsman about that and did not receive a substantive answer, which highlighted the fact that no internal record management processes were in place when the ombudsman's term started. Did the interview process clarify that?

I thank Mr Purvis for his intervention. We have of course raised that with the ombudsman, who assured us that she is addressing those matters, particularly the length of time that is taken to publish reports. I will deal with that in a moment.

If members have seen any of the reports, they will be aware that the ombudsman has found in favour of many complainants and recommended action to improve public service delivery. Members will also be aware that the ombudsman's office follows up matters with organisations to ensure that they have implemented the agreed action.

However, as with any complaints system, not everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. Members are probably more aware than most of the problem, as we try to resolve constituency matters. I am aware that a number of people consider that they have issues with the handling of their complaints. I am sympathetic, but it is important to set the matter in context.

Mr Scott is aware that I have raised with him and the corporate body several concerns about the ombudsman's office's handling of complaints. I have expressed concerns about undue delays in the preparation of cases, to which Mr Purvis referred, and weaknesses in the quality of investigations and reports. What assurances have been sought from the ombudsman that procedures will be altered, on her reappointment, to ensure that such failings will be prevented in the future?

We share Murdo Fraser's concerns. His point is similar to the point that Mr Purvis made. We have raised the matters that he asks about with the ombudsman at interview and at other times. I think that he is referring to a two-year delay in one case, which was unacceptable. Professor Brown is also concerned about such matters and assured us at interview that she will address them. Murdo Fraser may be aware that we have significantly increased her budget—by around 20 per cent—which will allow her to employ more people to address delays.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am afraid that the member has only one minute left.

I am sorry.

The ombudsman has dealt with more than 14,000 complaints and inquiries since she took up office. We have received 20 complaints about the ombudsman, which have primarily been about the time it has taken to handle complaints and the quality of the complaint handling. We thought that it was appropriate to raise those issues with her at interview. In response, she assured us that there will be improvements.

On the length of time it has taken to deal with complaints, the SPCB has, as I said, agreed to a significant increase in funding for the ombudsman's office, which will allow an additional seven staff to be recruited. The ombudsman will also pilot revised procedures. A panel will initially assess all complaints that come into the office to establish whether they are valid, whether they fall within the ombudsman's jurisdiction and whether they should be investigated. We hope that that approach will help to speed up the process. The SPCB will also regularly monitor performance against agreed targets. I would be more than happy to lodge the resulting reports before the Parliament as we receive them.

We have determined that the ombudsman should be reappointed for four years, from 30 September 2007. I have no doubt at all that she is fully committed to providing a first-class service to the public and to ensuring that all public authorities learn from complaints. I am sure that members will want to wish Professor Brown every success in her second term in office.

I move,

That the Parliament nominates Professor Alice Brown to Her Majesty The Queen for reappointment as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman from 30 September 2007 until 29 September 2011.

I acknowledge the difficult task that the SPCB faces in undertaking such processes on behalf of members of the Scottish Parliament. As a consequence, I have no intention of opposing the motion. In addition, I make it clear that what I will say is no personal reflection on Professor Alice Brown; rather, I want to comment on the operational processes of the Scottish public services ombudsman service that must engage everybody in the Parliament.

It is clear from what Mr Scott said and the interventions that were made on his speech that MSPs have fundamental issues with and concerns about the operation of the service. There are two particular issues, the first of which is the time it takes to handle cases. Certain cases have taken a significant amount of time to be processed and determined, which is unacceptable to people who are at the end of their tether.

The second and more significant issue is the ethos of the Scottish public services ombudsman's organisation. I would be much more comfortable with the work of the ombudsman's office if it focused on delivering a much more rigorous and robust critique of the operation of public services. People who have gone to MSPs or local authorities and still have outstanding issues are serious about their complaints. Some complaints should, of course, be rejected, but some need to be tested with much more robust effort and using much more robust processes in the Scottish public services ombudsman's office.

In that context, it is worth noting that the number of cases dealt with by the Scottish public services ombudsman has doubled between 2003 and the present day, whereas the funding has increased by only 20 per cent.

Quickly.

Does John Swinney share my concern that, in a demand-led institution, without the proper funding there will be delays in timetables?

That may be a reasonable point. I do not know whether Mr Ballard asked to speak in the debate, but he could have made that point in the debate.

MSPs must be absolutely confident that the Scottish public services ombudsman service will be robust with public organisations. I am very uneasy about the situation at present. I hear the reassurances John Scott gave us, and I look forward with enthusiasm to ensuring that the ombudsman addresses the issue in her second term of office. I have the feeling that she has not taken that approach in her first term of office. She must take a much more robust approach towards public organisations in order to guarantee that the public interest is fully and adequately served.

I reinforce the point that John Scott made about committees considering these issues. I think that committees should look at the ombudsman's reports carefully. By doing so, we will exert some pressure on the ombudsman to ensure that her reports are of an adequate standard, that the process has been robust and that the people whom we are sent here to serve can have confidence in the mechanisms that we have established to guarantee public scrutiny of important issues.

I will allow two brief speeches, from Alex Neil and from Fergus Ewing.

I will keep my comments brief, to allow Fergus Ewing to speak.

I am happy to vote for the reappointment of Alice Brown as the ombudsman, but, like many other members, I have a number of concerns. One is that we do not have a more systematic way of ensuring that the ombudsman is held to account more regularly by the Parliament for her work. I hope that, in the new session of Parliament, both the Parliamentary Bureau and the corporate body will consider how we can improve that interface.

There are currently four problems with the ombudsman's office. First, to be fair, the resources required to do the job, to date, have not been made available to the ombudsman. We are going some way towards solving that problem, but I suspect that we need to go further. Secondly, the turnaround times for cases are far too long. It has taken more than a year for the ombudsman to decide whether to investigate a case that I am dealing with. Thirdly, the variability of the quality of the service is, frankly, not acceptable. It depends too much on which particular investigator handles the case, rather than on overall quality control in the office.

The fourth problem, which I hope that the Parliament in the new session will consider as well, is the ombudsman's remit and powers. We have given her too narrow a remit, compared with the remits of ombudsmen in other countries, and not enough powers to enforce her recommendations.

I hope that all those issues will be addressed after 3 May.

I endorse the comments that have been made by my colleagues, John Swinney and Alex Neil. In the short time that is available to me, I wish to make one further point.

Many cases—including one particular case that I dealt with for a constituent—are highly complex, and some of them are extremely serious. The case that I dealt with—I will obviously not name the constituent—involved a serious matter relating to possible medical negligence and severe deterioration in the health of the complainer's wife. It seems to me that the ombudswoman's office should have been willing to meet my constituent to ensure that the facts of the case were fully understood and correctly stated. A statement of the case was prepared, but my constituent and I believed that it contained errors and inaccuracies. No opportunity was afforded to my constituent to have a face-to-face meeting to discuss the highly complex and very tragic set of circumstances of the case. There was an abrupt and clear refusal to meet my constituent in his home in my constituency, which is a long distance from Edinburgh. He could not travel to Edinburgh because of his wife's ill-health. I wanted to put my point on the record, and I hope that it will be attended to in future.

I thank members for their generally supportive stance in this debate. I note the concerns of Mr Swinney, Murdo Fraser, Jeremy Purvis, Alex Neil and Fergus Ewing.

I particularly note Mr Swinney's comments about the need for a more robust critique of public services, and I think that he answered his own question. There should be more parliamentary scrutiny of the ombudsman's reports, and I think he will agree with me when I say that I hope parliamentary committees in the next session of Parliament will subject the ombudsman's reports to much more robust criticism, with a view to proceeding with legislation following those reports. The worst thing that could happen in this Parliament would be if the ombudsman is still addressing the same complaints in 10 years' time; we must learn from the complaints that she is addressing now.

I thank members for their support.