Agenda item - Formal Public Involvement

This is the part of the meeting when members of the public can formally ask questions of the Board or present a petition.  These need to be notified to the Board in advance of the meeting Contact the Secretary to the Board at penny.jennings@brighton-hove.gov.uk

36.1    There was a public question from Mr Gary Vallier:

In light of the final Cass Review, and the Supreme Court’s clarification of the Equality Act in For Women Scotland versus Scottish Ministers, and the High Court’s confirmation of the lawfulness of the interim guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the DfEs draft 2025 update to Keeping Children Safe in Education .... will the Board confirm what steps it has taken, or will now take, to ensure that local safeguarding strategy, mental health pathways and partnership guidance across Brighton & Hove are aligned with this clarified legal and clinical framework?

36.2    The Chair responded:

Brighton & Hove Health and Wellbeing Board brings together key local leaders to improve the health and wellbeing of the population of Brighton & Hove and reduce health inequalities through developing a shared understanding of the health and wellbeing needs of its communities from pre-birth to end of life including the health inequalities within and between communities, developing a shared focus on the most vulnerable local residents, including Black and racially minoritised communities, people with disabilities, LBGTQ communities, people experiencing mental health problems and older people and provide system leadership to secure collaboration to meet these needs.

The Board has a role in strategic influence over commissioning decisions across health, public health and social care encouraging integration where appropriate, recognising the impact of the wider determinants of health on health and wellbeing and involving patient and service user representatives and councillors in commissioning decisions. Matters relating to education in the city are not within the remit of this Board.

All scrutiny and decisions made by the Board fully take into account and are properly informed and guided by the law and Government Guidance relevant to the matter under consideration. The Board expects partner organisations represented on the Board to ensure policy, commissioning and delivery of services to be compliant with the applicable law, statutory guidance when it is eventually published, and to be guided by and fully take into account relevant non-statutory guidance and Codes of Practice . This includes recent case law pertaining to the Equality Act 2010 and any future Guidance and Code of Practice issued as a result of that case law.

The case to which your question specifically refers concerned workplace regulations and highlighted the need for all public agencies to adopt a sophisticated approach to the provision of services . To quote the judge: “Each set of statutory provisions considered in the Interim Update provides a floor for provision of facilities. But neither provides a ceiling.” The case you refer to also reminds agencies that that laws and guidance cannot “seek to regulate every possibility that can arise, day-to-day, and in circumstances that are too numerous to anticipate.” . This Board would endorse the view expressed by Mr Justice Swift that “Those who provide facilities whether to the public or to their employees should comply with the law but also be guided by common sense and benevolence…..”

36.3    Mr Vallier asked a supplementary question:

In a deputation to the Board last September, a parent stated “this is not safeguarding; it is ideology overriding evidence, clinical caution and parental responsibility.” The Board did not provide a substantive response to that allegation at the time. Given the publication of the Cass Review and its clear statement that social transition is not a neutral act, does the Board accept that, when a parent alleges harm linked to local gender identity practice, safeguarding governance requires active examination rather than silence in order to avoid the appearance of pre-determined policy position. It seems the Board chooses silence.

The Chair agreed to provide a written response to this question. A response was subsequently shared with the questioner:

The board apologises for the delay in responding to your supplementary question but felt it would be of more value to wait until the publication of the independent patient safety investigation into prescribing for gender care for children and young people at a GP practice in Brighton to enable a fuller response.

Your supplementary question to the Board at the March 2026 meeting related to a question put the Board in September 2025. The Board takes the view that it answered that question at the time on the information available. The update to the information provided in that answer can now be found in the independent patient safety investigation into prescribing for gender care for children and young people at a GP practice in Brighton, led by Sussex and Surrey ICB with support from NHS England.  The published the report and next steps can be found on the ICB website - Patient Safety Investigation WellBN General Practice | ICB - Surrey and Sussex.