Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) is the father of a young person (referred to in this report as Mr A) who had recognised special educational needs and attended a mainstream secondary school (the School) in the area of Scottish Borders Council (the Council).  After bullying incidents at the School he suffered acute clinical depression (ACD).  The complaint made by Mr C related to how the Educational Psychology Service of the Council dealt with Mr A thereafter.  Mr C considered the Council had failed to implement their duties under the education legislation.  He then sought the intervention of the Scottish Executive[1] Education Department (SEED) and was aggrieved at SEED's reasons for not exercising their default powers.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

1. the Council failed in their duty under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, with regard to Mr A's educational needs following an episode of ACD (no finding);
2. the Council failed to ensure good professional management and to follow advice on good practice guidelines (not upheld);
3. the Council failed to disclose a prior 'gentleman's agreement' whereby an adolescent mental health unit rather than the Council's Educational Psychology Service took a lead role (upheld);
4. the Council abrogated their duties and responsibilities as education authority without notifying Mr and Mrs C or Mr A (not upheld);
5. an educational psychologist was directed by her line manager, for specious reasons, not to attend meetings at the School on 6 March 2003 (not upheld);
6. the Council's replies to Mr C's correspondence failed to answer his specific questions (not upheld);
7. in handling Mr C's formal complaint, the Chief Executive rewrote the complaint and failed to answer detailed points (not upheld);
8. the Chief Executive's response of 27 January 2004 to a request from SEED for information contained misleading statements and factual inaccuracies (not upheld);
9. SEED rewrote his letter of complaint to them of 30 September 2003 and failed to address all the issues (partially upheld);
10. SEED repeatedly failed to answer specific questions posed of them (not upheld);
11. SEED failed to address or explain why they did not deal with alleged breaches in duties detailed under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 (partially upheld);
12. SEED failed to take appropriate action when informed of Mr C's concerns about factual inaccuracies in the Council's Chief Executive's response to them of 27 January 2004 (not upheld); and
13. SEED failed to answer questions posed by Mr C and passed their reply off as being substantive (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council should give consideration to ensuring a more formal approach is adopted in informing and consulting with parents of children in future like circumstances, and particularly where there has been a significant absence from school.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

With reference to SEED, the Ombudsman makes no recommendation on the basis that they have advised her that instructions have been issued to avoid a recurrence of matters where the complaint was partially upheld.  However, she suggests that SEED may wish to take steps to ensure that their policy and practice in relation to exercising their default powers is fully publicised.

Overview
Mr C, who was a prisoner, complained to HMP Glenochil (the Prison) about the unreasonable delay in finalising his post programme report for the Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme.  In addition, Mr C complained that the Prison failed to take appropriate steps to resolve his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was an unreasonable delay in completing Mr C's post programme report (upheld); and
• (b) the Prison failed to take appropriate steps to resolve Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS):

• (i)  review the current resourcing and management of Sex Offender Treatment Programmes to ensure appropriate steps can be taken to avoid unnecessary delays in completing post programme reports.

The SPS have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

Mr C, who is a prisoner, arranged for his son (Mr A), who was 16 years old, and his daughter (Miss A), who was 15 years old, to visit him at HMP Kilmarnock (the Prison). Mr C's children were allowed to access the Prison but before accessing the visit, Miss A was searched after the metal detection alarm sounded when she passed through it. Following this, Mr C's children were denied access to the visit because Miss A was not accompanied by an adult.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) Mr C's daughter was inappropriately searched in the absence of an appropriate adult (upheld); and
(b) the internal complaints committee's written response to Mr C's prisoner complaint form did not accurately reflect the discussion held (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

(i)  the SPS update my office on the steps taken to implement a relevant policy in relation to the age a person must be to accompany a child under the age of 16 to a visit within a prison;

(ii)  the SPS consider seeking the views of the Commissioner for Children & Young People before implementing their new policy; and

(iii)  the SPS take immediate steps to ensure staff within all prisons are fully aware of the policy in place in relation to the age a person must be to accompany a person under the age of 16 to a prison.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about the handling by the Public Standards Commissioner (the PSC) of a complaint Mr C had raised concerning the actions of a councillor (the Councillor). Specifically, he complained that the PSC had failed to investigate his complaint adequately and that there were errors in the PSC's Note of Decision which remained uncorrected.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 invests in the SPSO powers to investigate the administrative and procedural actions of public bodies in Scotland, including whether there is evidence of service failure. The PSC is a public body which is named within the Act and, therefore, comes within my remit. Given this, I consider the PSC should be open to scrutiny of his administrative and procedural actions by my office in the same way as any other organisation under my jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in practice this has not been the case. I have found the actions of the PSC in response to my enquiries on this complaint and others to be at times obstructive and unhelpful and not what I would expect from a public body. I consider it necessary to take the unusual step of placing on public record the PSC's refusal to cooperate fully with my investigation of this complaint and, in particular, his refusal to release all the information I requested during the course of my enquiries. I do so in this public report.

From the outset and during the course of my investigation the PSC repeatedly questioned my jurisdiction to investigate Mr C's complaint and refused to provide me with all the information I requested, in particular copies of interview notes and a full, unredacted, schedule of those interviewed by his Investigating Officer. Correspondence with the PSC was protracted which severely hampered my investigation and, in addition, caused undue delay in my consideration of Mr C's complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) an Investigating Officer (the Investigating Officer) acted unreasonably in accepting the Councillor's testimony without scrutiny (not upheld);
• (b) the Investigating Officer acted unreasonably by failing to conduct interviews with all relevant witnesses (not upheld);
• (c) the Investigating Officer failed to prepare adequately for the interview with Mr C because he was not aware of contemporaneous notes which had been previously provided by Mr C (not upheld);
• (d) the Note of Decision failed to adequately make clear that Councillor X's statement about the Councillor's conduct (at paragraph 4.14) was a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact (not upheld);
• (e) the Note of Decision was not objective and made subjective comments, specifically at paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.8 (not upheld);
• and
• (f) the Note of Decision was factually inaccurate at paragraph 5.9 in relation to the date of the meeting and remains uncorrected (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the PSC:

• (i) takes steps to correct the Note of Decision and web summary to record the date of 26 September 2011.

The PSC has accepted this recommendation and has already acted upon it accordingly.

Note:  From 1 July 2013 the Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland and its two existing members - the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Public Standards Commissioner - were restructured to establish one new office of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland.