Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following items raised by members of the public:

(a)       Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or to the meeting itself;

(b)       Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12noon on the 16^th September 2025

(c)        Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 16 September 2025.

11(a) Public Question from Mr William Barry

11.1    Mr Barry asked the following question:

My name is William Barry I’m a 70 year old veteran and I am a longstanding patient at the Wellsbourne centre, and have been so happy with the services I have received there, that I chose to remain even when I moved out of area, rather than switch to my nearest GP service. I have been outraged at the way the procurement process has played out, not least because there didn't seem to be any consultation process to speak of, no one seemed to care what the patients think, and I have written previously to councillors and to the Health Secretary Wes Streeting to express my dismay and anger!

I understand from campaigners that the procurement was judged by an NHS

England panel to be deeply flawed, and has therefore been at least paused. I would like to be reassured that this pause will turn into a complete halt, and that we will be able to keep our fantastic GP service exactly as it is. Whitehawk has had such problems with GP provision for in the past, when the figures show that health inequalities persist at such a high level in our city, why would we risk swapping such a successful community interest service for a 'for profit' provider!?

11.2    It was agreed that a written response to this question would be provided. The following response from NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board was subsequently shared with Mr Barry:

Thank you for sharing your feedback on the services you have been receiving from Wellsbourne Healthcare CIC. We can share that we regularly review patient satisfaction alongside performance data, and this was taken into account with the development of the new seven year contract. The new contract was designed to set clear outcomes expected from a provider to address health inequalities in the Whitehawk area, alongside the high quality primary medical services that a provider would be expected to deliver.

NHS Sussex undertook the procurement in line with the Provider Selection Regime 2023 (PSR 2023) after initial discussions with the current provider could not agree a position, and then after an understanding of the market after the recent procurement for a new contract for the Brighton Station Health Centre.

On 24 July, the ICB made a decision to stop the procurement for this new contract for GP services in the Whitehawk area of Brighton and Hove and we are considering how we can best ensure high quality services for the local population for the future. A key part of this is the independent review that we have commissioned and we will consider the next steps after the conclusion of this.

Separately, we have agreed a contract extension with Wellsbourne Healthcare CIC to continue providing services for the next 12 months. NHS Sussex has responsibility to ensure access to primary medical services for the Whitehawk population, and this extension ensures uninterrupted patient care while we commission the independent review and determine next steps.

In developing our next steps to this, we will reconsider how best to engage with the local community, specifically those registered with the practice.

11(b) Public Question from Mr James Joughin

11.3    Mr Joughin asked the following question:

Polly Toynbee's article in The Guardian suggests that the tender process for

Wellsbourne Healthcare was unnecessary and that all the subsequent confusion could've been avoided. Can we be told what the costs to the system have been? That is, the extra costs for the ICB in running the tender and evaluating the proposals and running three internal appeals, extra costs for the existing practice in preparing its proposal and then defending itself from all the fallout, staff lost amidst the uncertainty, even meetings like this having to be called?

Can we hope that the perverse outcome that shocked patients and the community will give the ICB second thoughts before they embark on the next phase of this process?

11.4    It was agreed that a written response to this question would be provided. The following response from NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board was subsequently shared with Mr Joughlin:

We are sorry for your concerns about the process.

NHS Sussex undertook the procurement in line with the Provider Selection Regime 2023 (PSR 2023) after initial discussions with the current provider could not agree a position, and then after an understanding of the market after the recent procurement for a new contract for the Brighton Station Health Centre. The new contract set clear outcomes expected from a provider to address health inequalities in the Whitehawk area. Through robust contract monitoring our responsibility would have been to ensure that this was delivered, as well as access to high quality primary medical services.

In terms of cost, procurement processes are part of ICB core business. We did not bring in any additional resource or incur additional costs to run the process to date. Any future procurement will also be delivered by ICB teams. 

Additional costs have only been incurred in relation to the independent review to date. The review has been commissioned by NHS Sussex to ensure transparency, accountability, and continual improvement in the procurement stage of the commissioning cycle. The findings will help inform future procurement activity and offer actionable insights and learning opportunities for staff within NHS Sussex.