News / SEND
Fallout from council surveillance on parents continues
Bristol City Council’s executive director for children & education said she wants “to consider this matter closed” following the publication of an independent report that confirmed surveillance of parents and carers had taken place by council staff.
Hannah Woodhouse, however, had not reckoned for Labour councillor Kerry Bailes, who herself had been a victim of the spying scandal which took place during the previous Labour administration.
Bailes is now a member of the children & young people policy committee, in front of which Woodhouse presented the report which SEND campaigner Jen Smith had earlier called “spies and lies” and “fantasy fiction”.
Woodhouse may want to consider the matter closed but Bailes, who represents Hartcliffe & Withywood, was on the offensive, saying that SEND services in Bristol “are worse than they’ve ever been”.
Bailes than asked 26 questions which she wanted to be answered at the meeting on Thursday but was told would have to be given to her in writing, which she was unhappy with and requested that because the questions were asked in public they should be answered in public.
Bailes’ questions included:
- will the council change its retention policy and stop deleting the emails of senior staff who leave especially when complaints and investigations are ongoing?
- are councillors leading the response to the report or are officers “still steering what members are allowed to question”?
- why was the scope of the investigation so narrow when parent-carers had said the issue “was wider than social media screenshots”?
- if new evidence comes forward, will the committee commission a wider investigation?
- what council policies were used to justify the monitoring of parent-carers?
- were any parent-carers treated as if they had broken the law, reported to the police or discussed with the police in order to justify monitoring them online or in-person?
- was anybody else monitored because of their link to the affected parent-carers?
- “why are parent-carers talking about trauma and poor treatment by SEND services described as ‘vitriolic’ when a councillor saying they would rather slit their own throat during a full council speech was not treated as a conduct concern?”
- has the council checked whether officers involved in this matter have had previous complaints made against them about how they treated parent-carers or children?
- have any officers been disciplined or left and received settlements because of this investigation?
- “why does the report recommend protecting staff from criticism but not protecting parent-carers and children from poor practice?”
Labour councillor Kerry Bailes was herself a victim of surveillance by council staff – photo: Martin Booth
Replying to Bailes, Woodhouse said: “Definitely the remit of the investigation was to consider everything that was given and it was extended on at least one occasion to welcome as much evidence as possible…
“We are hopeful that we are in a different place now, largely as a result of some very difficult leadership which has been led both by partners around the table and we continue to work really hard on that.”
Children & young people policy committee chair, Christine Townsend, called the practise of surveillance by council staff on parents and carers “unacceptable”.
Townsend, Green Party councillor for Southville, added: “It is a snapshot and it is an exposé of what had been evident for years for those of us who had lived experience, be that personal, professional or in some cases both, of not only the SEND system but of the wider education system at that time.
“It describes what can happen when there is a lack of corporate interest, vision or oversight of areas for which it holds elected responsibility on a statutory basis.
“The culture of an institution – and it is culture that has created this situation – is set by those at the top.
“Those who work within that institution will be guided by that which is valued; equally by that which is passed over.
“This report demonstrates that what was valued is what got in the media, not how well the services were serving children and families…
“We’re in a better place now. We’re really beginning to see that come through.
“However, any damage that was done was done at that time. I can’t influence where the investigation went. The point of it was that it was external and that it was independent.”
Main photo: Martin Booth
Read next:
Our newsletters emailed directly to you
