It is now the second vote since July 2022 where Bristol councillors have voted for an independent investigation

Bristol councillors have once again voted to have an independent investigation into the spying of Send families by council officers.

In July 2022, The Bristolian published a story online that high level officers at Bristol City Council were monitoring what key members of Bristol Parent Carer Forum were saying outside of their coproduction roles.

The incident sparked enough upset to provoke a motion to Full Council in October 2022 for an investigation into the surveillance.

Since then, everyone who could have held an investigation has not done so, despite questions, statements, pressure and complaining.

A statement I submitted to Children and Young People Policy Committee in June 2025, prompted a discussion between Labour Councillor Kerry Bailes and Green Party Chair Christine Townsend.

The result was a paper submitted to the 28 August 2025 meeting by Executive Director of Education, Hannah Woodhouse, updating the committee.

The paper proposed to vote for an investigation or not.

A late amendment was submitted by Kerry Bailes, delving into the Terms Of Reference.

The item now meant that councillors would vote whether to adopt the amendment or not.

They would then vote on whether to hold an investigation or not.

Executive Director of Education Hannah Woodhouse said: “I don’t really want to say very much more than is in the report to be honest. But just a few things to sort of preface it.

“One is to recognize that this is a really difficult, painful conversation for many.

“In the report it outlines the history that in 2021-22 there was concerns about officer use of social media raised by both chief exec and the previous scrutiny committee which were investigated and published and anyone can read that report – which is included in the paper.

“There has been ongoing concern as we know. There’s been concern about whether the investigation covered the ground it needed and that’s what was discussed in the last committee.

“There was a golden motion at the time to do an in external investigation which wasn’t taken forward under the previous administration.

“And so we really recognize the the ongoing concerns and also the need to build trust in the administration. And so we really recognise the ongoing concerns and also the need to build trust and move forward with this issue. And I think that has been expressed by everybody.

“And so we’re bringing two options today.

“We’re bringing option number one, which is proposing that we commission an external investigator to set out – as the report says – to set out the terms of reference with input from the committee or to not do anything is option number two.

“There is also an amendment which you know we will come to.

“I did just want to say before you start discussing this that the paper does set out that improving outcomes for Send children is a huge priority for us. We know that we’ve got lots of work to do. We are doing that work. We’ve talked about that at every committee that you’ve had.

“And also that our partnerships are a lot better than they were at the time. They still obviously always can be improved and I recognise that things take time to improve and particularly relationships do. But they are in a – you know – significantly different place and I hope that the report sets that out clearly.

“So I think that’s all that we wanted to say and over to you.”

Kerry Bailes’ amendment seconded by Councillor Susan Kollar opened the paper up for discussion and a vote.

Committee Chair Christine Townsend said of the amendment that Woodhouse was invited to speak for the “officer perspective” as a “professional perspective.”

Woodhouse said: “So just to welcome the input and the suggestions which obviously – you know – have had a a lot of thought and include – you know – a lot of content which are really helpful and are really well considered.

“I think that the only concern from the sort of officer perspective, the main concern from the officer perspective is that there are significant financial implications in the amendment, both in terms of resource as well as implications of the report as well as policy implications.

“And so such that it may not have been allowable but we did want to sort of, we’re keen on transparency, we’re keen obviously contributions from the committee that the conversation that we’ve had. So our comment is that we were happy for it to be debated but we do need to understand that it’s on the basis that we are concerned about the potential financial implications. It’s not been costed.”

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Brislington West, Andrew Varney said: “So almost 3 years ago I was in this room when we had the golden motion debate and I voted for an investigation into the allegations at that point and it’s very disappointing that that investigation did not take place at that time. Because I think now almost 3 years later it might be harder to get to the truth of the matter. So that’s really unfortunate.

“But you know, I am, we’ve also heard about the expenses. Well, I am concerned that this investigation, if we approve it, is going to be expensive and the money will be coming from the SEND budget, which we can ill afford to spend on other things.

“But we did have a vote in full council. I’m not in the habit of ignoring votes in full council. So on that basis, I will be supporting option one.

“I thank Councillor Bailes for her amendment, but I think it’s a little bit premature. I think firstly we need to decide whether or not we’re going to have the investigation. Then we need to appoint a lead person to carry out the investigation – independent person. And we need to probably, I would, imagine discuss the terms and conditions the terms of reference I should say with that appointee and then I believe the proposed terms of reference will be coming back to a future committee.

“At that point, I think that would be the appropriate time to debate the terms of reference and perhaps to put amendments. At that time. I think probably at this point, it’s a premature.

“Also, Councillor Bailes, says one thing I didn’t quite like about your terms of reference – no offence -but it didn’t mention anything about politicians at the time and I think, you know, we can’t just have an investigation that focuses only on council officers.

“I think it’s potentially the case that politicians may have known what was going on. And if we really want to get to the bottom of this and put this issue to bed, we do need to invite politicians at the time to give evidence if they wish. Of course, that’s the issue, isn’t it? We can’t compel anyone to give evidence.

“So, we might never completely get to the bottom of this and it will leave a lot of people unsatisfied and we would have spent a lot of money as well.

“But we had a vote in full council three years ago. It was ignored by the previous administration. I don’t want to ignore it today. So, I support having an investigation.”

Conservative Councillor for Stoke Bishop, John Goulandris said: “Apologies if this sounds a bit of a repeat of what Councillor Varney has said, but I think it is important that I set out my my views on this.

“The external independent investigation should have been carried out in 2022. That was the wish of full council. That the administration – and it was a mayoral administration – that one man or the team – whatever you want to call it – blocked that vote of full council. Ignored the democratic wish of full council is disgraceful, shameful. And I think that’s one of the reasons why we’ve got rid of an appalling system and I hope we never ever go back to that mayoral system which was such a blot and a stain on on Bristol civic character.

“So, it should have been done in 2022. In 2025, it’s going to be much harder and I think we’re going to have to be very careful with the terms of reference because otherwise we could end up spending a huge amount of money on this – and it’s money that comes out of the Send budget of course. So, we do have to be very very careful with what we spend. The terms of reference will have to be tightly drawn.

“But we do need that investigation. I have spoken to officers and and I know that they’re they’re concerned that the investigation wasn’t carried out. I know parents and residents are unhappy that it wasn’t carried out. It will forever be a problem, I think, unless we actually do something.

“So, option one, I’m happy to support. The amendment – I’m not happy to support.”

Hartcliffe and Withywood Councillor Kerry Bailes said: “Just to come back on a few points. My terms of reference have been sense checked by parent carers, So I think it’s really important to have them involved. So if officers decide on the terms of reference, obviously they’re not going to be involved in that, not specifically as they have been with mine.

“So I think to build on the trust, they have to be involved at every level. And I didn’t vote for or against, I didn’t vote at all. I didn’t abstain on the original motion. So it’s quite concerning that, you know, three years later it hasn’t happened.

“And the reason it didn’t happen under us is because, as Christine said last time, there was legal action.

“So, you know, nobody could move forward until that legal action had ended. So, you know, I think my terms of reference would build trust with parent carers because we have waited a very long time. And you know, I think whoever was involved, you know, it would give us an answer. It would give us all closure whether you know it was done for whatever reason. We need closure on this. I think everybody needs closure because otherwise we’re just going to keep talking about this and talking about it forever and ever and ever.”

Green Party Councillor for St George Central, Cara Lavan said: “Is there any reason why the motion as proposed can’t involve parent carers in setting up terms of reference? Is there is there still opportunity for them to be involved as things stand? Was my first question and then also you made it sound as if this is still ongoing and is it still ongoing? And is there evidence that it’s still ongoing?”

Councillor Bailes replied: “The longer this goes on the more suspicion is raised which is why we need closure. So an investigation it would find out that. So in my terms of reference it says when concerns were first raised right up until now. So if whether it has or hasn’t been going on, you know, a continuation, an investigation would find out. You know, as parent carers, some of them want to remain anonymous. So I can’t speak on their experience without identifying them.

“So with an investigation, they could remain anonymous. They could speak to the investigator and whatever they disclose, whether it’s historic or recent, that would be investigated.

Councillor Lavan said: “But there you don’t know of any evidence that it’s ongoing because the report says that it’s the culture has changed now. And do you think do you believe the culture has changed?

Councillor Bailes said: “Well, I was somebody that was spied on, so it’s not really, I don’t really want to give any information at a public forum.

Councillor Varney said: “We’re not supposed to be having the investigation here and now. So, I think we should leave that to if we decide to vote for investigation, we should leave that to the experts. But, you know, we just need to decide how we’re going to vote.”

Green Party Councillor for Lawrence Hill, Shona Jemphrey said: “I think it’s really important to have an investigation and try and settle this as much as we can. I think there’s a lot of good stuff in the terms of reference. I think there is stuff that I would like changed.

“As someone mentioned, it doesn’t mention any of the politicians involved at the time, and that will surely be quite a key part of it.

“So, and you know, I would hope that I note that the original recommendation says that the terms of reference would be developed in consultation with us as committee members.

“So, I would hope that a lot of these terms of reference could be brought into it. But I don’t feel comfortable voting for it as it is now considering I only saw it like yesterday. I wish we’d had this conversation a couple of weeks ago to kind of been able to thrash it out and get to a stage today where it was something we were all happy with.

“I think there’s also like that balance. You know, we don’t know the exact cost of it. My understanding is that to do an investigation up to the present day is likely to be far more expensive than if we do an investigation around the period where we know there’s concerns.

“And so, I suppose we have to justify if we’re going to spend a lot of money bringing it up to the present day, we have to have like reasonable confidence. We have to have some sort of reason for that to – I suppose my concern is that we don’t seem to have any evidence to justify that at the moment. And that’s my concern. I would love if we had enough money to just do it all and then we could all put it to bed and we never have to think about this again.

“But, I’m, I don’t feel comfortable authorising that amount of money when from what we understand it comes out of this Send budget anyway. But I would really hope that we could have some follow-up discussions as soon as possible and that most of these terms of reference could be brought into whatever the final decision is made is my view.”

Labour Councillor for Bishopsworth, Susan Kollar: “I can’t speak from personal experience. It didn’t happen to me. But I think as a parent, I know how I would feel if that had happened to me. And I believe that anyone out there that has that hanging over their head that they were treated the way that it is reported, that we should be looking back and saying what happened, what went wrong, and how can we stop it from ever happening again?

“So for me, obviously, I’m going to support us doing the investigation purely because it’s more about prevention as well as looking back into what what happened. But if we know that something was wrong, we need to fix it. We need to move on and we need to learn and make sure that that doesn’t happen again. And only finding out the truth of what happened can we actually move forward. So that’s why I’m going to kind of say yes to an investigation.”

Green Party Councillor for Bedminster, Ellie Freeman said: “I think people have covered a lot of what I was going to say and I think, you know, I’m with everybody else on this that we obviously need to have it.

“I don’t think there was really a question about whether we were going to have an investigation.”

Fact Check One:

Despite a multitude of approaches, there has been no way of making Bristol City Council under either Labour or the Green Party have an investigation into Send spying. That is a fact. This is why legal action was attempted. There was no other choice.

Additionally, in the prior meeting of the same committee on 26 June 2025, Christine Townsend went as far as telling Councillor Bailes that anything posted on social media is in the public domain. This is simply not the case with how Bristol City Council behaved. But the row shows that the Bristol Green party had no intention of holding an investigation.

The row sparked from a piece of public forum I had submitted to the meeting.

Christine Townsend said in the row in June: “The other thing I would say about social media is that if somebody puts something in the public domain, it’s not spying… If something is in the public domain, they have put it in the public domain.”

This does not explain directed surveillance which Bristol City Council engaged in with Send And You to spy directly on people in the real world.

The full row between Christine Townsend and Kerry Bailes can be seen in the video.

Ellie Freeman continuing:”It’s how we frame that and how we make sure that the costs don’t spiral that we keep a we have a very clear scope and we’re very clear about where we draw the line. So that we don’t it doesn’t creep and we don’t eat into our very precious send budget.

“I think the other aspect that I wanted to raise is as an Send parent I’ve not had much to do with the parent carers forum. I know that they’re a brilliant advocate and a brilliant organisation, but obviously there are other stakeholders who might have an interest here and we talk quite a lot about the parent carers forum. Are there other SEN parents who perhaps aren’t being heard in this debate?

“Can we make sure that if we are looking at parents and you know that we are not just relying on the parent carers forum to kind of represent that voice. That we are making sure that we are very clear about who we are including and why I suppose.”

Fact Check Two:

Bristol Parent Carers are mentioned in relation to council surveillance because it was specifically senior members of the parent carer forum spied on. This is what led directly to Bristol City Council’s internal report and subsequent legal action by two individuals.

This is not something that all Send groups need to be consulted on or contribute towards. This is not about coproduction with the council.

Fact Check Three:

Bristol Parent Carer Forum features heavily in council discusisons because they are the city’s specific Parent Carer Forum for coproduction.

Parent Carer Forums are specifically mentioned in the SEND Code of Practice Birth to 25 years. This document underpins Send provision and councillors making key decisions about Send should be aware of its contents. This is why the forum is often referenced. Along with the fact it was spied on.

The COP says: ‘Parent Carer Forums are representative local groups of parents and carers of children and young people with disabilities who work alongside local authorities, education, health and other service providers to ensure the services they plan, commission, deliver and monitor meet the needs of children and families. Parent Carer Forums have been established in most local areas and local authorities are actively encouraged to work with them…’

Since the forum was taken over by new senior members around the autumn of 2021, the forum has grown into a large, thriving organisation that is fully representative of the city’s parent carers. Any comment to the contrary should be evidenced – which councillors would be unable to do – because it would be a malicious falsehood.

Freeman continued: “Yeah I agree with Shona [Jemphrey] I think there’s some great bits in this terms of reference. I think there’s other bits that we need to work on a bit more and discuss a bit more and we need to make sure they’re really tight and that we’re confident that they’re feasible as well. That they are, you know, they fit within a legal framework, that they are realistic and they actually will feed into an investigation that happens. Because otherwise we will keep going around in circles and not getting anywhere.

“And I agree with what everybody said that we need to we need to progress this and we then need to put it to bed because we can’t afford to spend more officers time, our time or funding on this in the future.”

Chair of CYP Committee, Green Councillor for Southville Ward, Christine Townsend said: “I think that I echo particularly a lot about of what Councillor Varney was saying.

“I agree with you. In some ways the these are very wide, but they’re also too narrow. There need – certainly a term of reference in here needs to look at members of the previous administration alongside also political appointees. That may have worked with that administration.

“We need to. I need to reiterate. Such an investigation does not have any legal powers. So anybody that is contributing from outside of the organization is doing so on a voluntary basis. And so therefore, we would be looking towards the Bristol Labor Party colleagues to ensure that the previous, those members of the administration that were relevant to this, or political appointees that were relevant to this, it’s going to be on you guys to get that engagement from them.

“Because if that is not forthcoming, we’re not going to get as full a picture as is possible at it as it will be possible to get. I mean three years has passed. There will be people that have left the organisation that just will not, that will choose not to engage.

“So in some ways it will be an incomplete jigsaw regardless. Because that’s just the situation that we are now find ourselves in. And there isn’t anything that we as a committee can we can we can do about that.”

A vote was taken on whether to adopt Councillor Bailes amendment.

Three voted for:
Councillor Bailes, Councillor Kollar and Councillor Hornchen

Six voted against:
Councillor Townsend, Councillor Varney, Councillor Lavan, Councillor Freeman, Councillor Goulandris and Councillor Jemphrey/

The amendment was lost.

A second vote was taken as to the options on the original paper.

All councillors voted for for option one.

This means the following action will be taken:

To request the Executive Director: Children and Education to commission an independent investigation into the issues identified in 2021/22 within the report as well as more widely; and to delegate authority to the Executive Director: Children and Education to identify a suitably qualified reviewer, and determine the specific terms of reference/scope of the investigation in consultation with the members of the Children and Young People Policy Committee.

Under this option, the service will work closely and confidentially with any parents or staff directly affected in the spirit of confidentiality and transparency. A report will also be brought to update the Committee with the outcomes of the investigation.