RAISING SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS

WHO DECIDES IF THEY ARE ADDRESSED OR ARE IGNORED?

ALARM RAISED ABOUT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS

Early in 2023 members of a women’s group CambsWomen-Together (CW-T) were sent a copy of Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) and Peterborough City Council (PCC) LGBTQ+ Toolkit For Schools and Colleges 2022.

CW-T had many concerns about the toolkit

• the information had come from a lobby group,

• used language that was not widely accepted

• used unscientific terminology

• went against safeguarding principles

• promoted social transitioning, which is not a neutral act

• utilised discredited statistics

• misinterpreted the Equality Act and single sex exemptions

In June 2023 CW-T emailed a letter to three senior council employees within Children’s Services and Education

Martin Purbrick (Executive Director for Children, Education and Families, CCC)

Elaine Redding (interim Executive Director of Children’s Services, PCC)

John Gregg (incoming Executive Director of Children’s Services, PCC).

And four county councillors – two from Cambridgeshire County Council and two from Peterborough City Council

Cllr Lucy Nethsingha (Leader, Cambridgeshire County Council)

Cllr Bryony Goodliffe (Chair of Children’s Service committee, CCC)

Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Leader, Peterborough City Council)

Cllr Lynne Ayres (Cabinet member for Education, PCC)

THE EXECUTIVE WILL IGNORE YOU

Were women’s groups the only ones to have raised questions about the LGBTQ+ Toolkit, or have other recipients raised concerns?

CW-T did not receive a response from the Executive Officers for Education and Children at CCC or PCC, is this because the Executive do not see a problem with the information that the council have provided, or because they are not prepared to put any response into writing about why female constituents’ concerns were unfounded?

Does ignoring the issues raised allow accountability to be sidestepped and provide room to deny knowledge at a later point in time?

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

In June 2023 I submitted a Freedom Of Information request to Cambridgeshire County Council. The response confirmed that a copy of the LGBTQ+ Toolkit had been sent to all schools on 12^th May 2022 and iterated that the information contained within the toolkit refers to children falling under the acronym LGBTQ+, though it could be argued that the toolkit focusses primarily upon TQ+ (identities) rather than LGB (sexuality). The council stated that there was no reference in the guidance to supporting children dealing with issues around gender stereotypes and body image issues, yet gender identity is bound up in sex role stereotypes and focusses on a dislike of the sexed body while promoting the notion that the body can be changed.

The Council confirmed that they only sought advice from The Kite Trust (Lobby group) and Brighton & Hove Council/Allsorts guidance. Brighton and Hove’s “Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit 2021: A Guide to Supporting Trans Children and Young People in Education Settings” guidance was critiqued by barrister Karon Monaghan in March 2024 in which she concludes “a school that implements the guidance in the Toolkit is very likely to act unlawfully in the respects set out above”.

If Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Councils have copied enough of the Brighton and Hove Toolkit, and a school goes onto implement the advice provided, who would be held responsible if such a school was to be taken to court by a parent or a pupil who believed the school acted unlawfully?

Could Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council inform schools that it was only a Toolkit, therefore not legally binding advice and it was the school’s duty to ensure that they sought accurate, legal advice prior to implementing information from within the Toolkit?

CASCADING CONCERNS TO COUNTY AND CITY COUNCILLORS

In April 2024 CW-T tweeted, expressing their disappointment at the lack of acknowledgement or response to their letter the previous year.

As result of this tweet and believing that constituents concerns were worthy of a response, on behalf of Women’s Rights Network (WRN) Cambridgeshire members, I emailed a letter to all county councillors sitting on CCC and PCC. One councillor had recently been elected and did not have an email address, his letter was sent by post.

A total of 119 Councillors were contacted. 60 Cambridgeshire County Councillors and 59 Peterborough City Councillors. Four of those councillors would have received the original letter from CW-T, though the Leadership of PCC had changed.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCILLORS CONTACTED

Conservative: 22 Labour: 9 Liberal Democrat: 22 Independent: 7

PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCILLORS CONTACTED

Conservative: 22 Labour: 13 Liberal Democrat: 8 Peterborough First: 10 Other: 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

Six ‘Out of Office’ responses were received.

Four councillors responded and acknowledged receipt of the email; one from Peterborough and three from Cambridgeshire.

One councillor acknowledged that the council taking information from one source was not ideal.

Another councillor informed me that he would ensure that the letter reached the Chair of Children’s Services who would respond. That response never materialised.

ROLE OF COUNTY COUNCILLORS

According to the Local Government Association the role of a councillor involves ‘helping to shape the future of the local area by making plans and taking decisions. Councillors are elected to make informed decisions; they scrutinise the decisions made by officers and represent the wards that have elected them. Part of their role can also be to support and work with schools enabling them to meet their statutory duty so children can achieve the best outcome.

Over the last few months, I have observed County Councillors

• criticising council departments who do not responded to their emails.

• highlighting that they have saved the county thousands by querying poorly formulated plans submitted by officers.

• promoted their involvement in challenging underperforming schools.

• tack sexism.

• extolling their honesty

Unfortunately, when it came to providing answers to questions related to the LGBTQ+ Toolkit for Schools and Colleges 2022, the same councillors remain silent!

• How does this fit in with the aim of making informed decisions and holding council members and employees to account?

• Do we really have 119 uninquisitive councillors serving the public at Cambridgeshire County and Peterborough City?

• Are there no councillors who are concerned that misinformation may be going into schools, or the negative impact this could have on a schools’ policy and practice?

HOW DID THE COLLECTIVE DECIDE NOT TO RESPOND?

Is it possible that the lack of response from County Councillors is due to councillors being intimidated into silence by their own party’s policies related to LGB and Identity issues and cowed from speaking in council chambers or even amongst their own colleagues?

This silence could suggests that as individuals and as a collective, councillors are unwilling to

• scrutinise or question the advice within the LGBTQ+ Toolkit.

• seek a response from the Education Safeguarding Team to the questions posed

• check the legality of the information provided to schools

• check that council money was spent wisely and determine if the advice provided to schools could reflect badly on the council at a later date.

• ascertain that the advice provided to schools considers all children and does not create disadvantage between groups of children.

Given that many councillors have been vocal proponents of LGBTQ+ issues, signing council motions, raising flags and supporting child transition etc. it is surprising that the same councillors have been unwilling to seek and supply a collective response from Cambridgeshire County and Peterborough City councils. Instead, it appears that as a collective, 119 councillors and 3 executives from both councils chose silence. Which as we can acknowledge, does little to protect or safeguard children.

INACCURACIES ELSEWHERE

In July 2024 Cambridgeshire County Council admitted liability to harassing Lizzy Pitt, on the basis of her gender critical belief and sexual orientation minutes before the Employment Tribunal was to start. One of the conditions that CCC agreed to was the revision of it’s e-learning module on ‘belief’ which is to be written with oversight of a barrister.

If schools follow the Toolkit guidance is it possible that a child in school could be having a similar experience to Lizzy Pitt if they express disbelief of gender identity?