A revealing Full Council exchange combined genuine personal distress with serious confusion about the legal position. Brighton & Hove City Council may campaign to change the law, but it must implement the law that exists, consult impartially across protected groups and explain how its policies will comply when the new statutory Code takes effect on 5 August.
A second exchange at Brighton & Hove City Council has raised substantial questions about legal compliance, institutional neutrality and the authority’s readiness for the updated Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice.
Councillor Raphael Hill asked how the Council intended to respond to the new Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations, which comes into force on 5 August 2026.
His question began from a highly critical assessment of the Code:
“This guidance appears to conflict with the Public Sector Equality Duty and other equality legislation, and therefore seems unworkable.”
He asked how the Council would navigate that supposed uncertainty while upholding the dignity of transgender people, which he said the guidance undermined.
Councillor Mitchie Alexander replied that the Supreme Court judgment had had:
“a very negative effect on our trans and non-binary communities, and also on people who have a gender non-conforming appearance.”
She confirmed that Brighton & Hove would remain both a “trans-inclusive employer” and a “trans-inclusive Council”, while adding that the authority would also comply with the law.
Councillor Alexander said the Council was meeting transgender, non-binary and intersex representatives through its TNBI Roundtable to understand their concerns and consider how the Council might “mitigate some of the harms currently being felt”.
She then made the political administration’s position unusually explicit:
“We also believe that the guidance is flawed and confusing, and we will continue pressing the Government to legislate to ensure that the dignity of trans people is protected.”
The supplementary exchange became more personal.
Councillor Hill asked:
“What would you say to transgender people like myself who feel that this Government treats us as a disease, unwelcome in society?”
He continued:
“Why should we trust a Government that endorses guidance which treats us as sexual predators simply for existing as who we are?”
Councillor Alexander responded sympathetically but without correcting the legal premise:
“To be honest, I don’t really know how to answer you, except to say that I am very sorry.”
She said that she was trying to understand the pain being experienced by transgender and non-binary people, that a Council team was working on the issues, and that she hoped to offer a clearer answer “in a couple of months’ time”.
The distress expressed in the chamber was plainly genuine. It deserved a humane response.
What it did not receive was a legally clear one.
Political disagreement is not legal uncertainty
The central premise of the question was that different parts of equality law now point in contradictory directions.
They do not.
The Supreme Court held unanimously in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers that the words “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The judgment also made clear that transgender people remain protected against discrimination under the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
The updated EHRC Code does not compete with the Equality Act, nor does it displace the Public Sector Equality Duty. It is a statutory Code designed to explain how the Act applies to services, public functions and associations following legal developments, including the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Code itself states that it has been formally approved and laid before Parliament.
The commencement regulations were made on 14 July 2026. They provide that the new Code comes into force on 5 August 2026.
Brighton & Hove councillors are entitled to believe that Parliament should change the law. They are entitled to campaign for that outcome and to criticise the judgment or the Code politically.
The Council, as a public authority, must meanwhile apply the law that exists.
Disagreement with the law does not make the law internally contradictory. Nor does describing statutory guidance as “confusing” suspend the Council’s obligation to understand and implement it accurately.
The Code does not describe transgender people as predators
Councillor Hill’s supplementary question conveyed profound personal pain. That should neither be mocked nor trivialised.
It is entirely possible for legal change, public debate and political rhetoric to leave people feeling rejected or afraid. A responsible Council should listen carefully to residents and employees who describe such effects.
Compassion must nevertheless be accompanied by accuracy.
Neither the Supreme Court judgment nor the statutory Code declares transgender people to be diseased, predatory or unwelcome. The Code continues to recognise gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, alongside sex, disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation and the other characteristics within its scope.
The Code addresses the legal circumstances in which services may be provided separately or exclusively according to sex. Those circumstances may involve privacy, dignity, intimate care, safety, trauma or the nature of the service being provided.
A female-only refuge, changing facility, ward or intimate-care service does not assert that every male person is a predator. Sex separation can serve legitimate needs without imputing criminal intent to anyone excluded from that provision.
Councillor Alexander could therefore have acknowledged her colleague’s distress while also stating clearly that the law does not characterise transgender people in the way suggested.
Instead, the accusation was met only with apology.
That may have been emotionally understandable, but it was institutionally unhelpful. By failing to correct an inaccurate description of the Code, the response risked reinforcing fear rather than explaining the legal position.
“We believe the guidance is flawed and confusing”
The most important statement in the exchange was Councillor Alexander’s assertion:
“We also believe that the guidance is flawed and confusing.”
The word “we” requires clarification.
Does this represent a formally adopted position of Brighton & Hove City Council? Is it the view of the political administration, the Labour group, the Cabinet, a working group or Councillor Alexander personally?
Was the conclusion reached after advice from the Monitoring Officer or specialist equality lawyers? Has the Council identified particular provisions which it considers unclear? Has an equality impact assessment been completed?
None of this was explained.
That omission matters because political opposition and lawful administration are different functions.
Councillors may campaign against the Code. Council officers must implement it impartially.
A public authority cannot begin a statutory compliance exercise with the settled aim of neutralising provisions its political leadership regards as harmful. Nor can it use a broad commitment to “inclusion” to preserve practices which no longer reflect the legal meaning of sex.
Where the administration publicly characterises the Code as flawed before publishing its legal analysis or implementation plan, residents are entitled to ask whether the forthcoming review will be genuinely open-minded.
The Public Sector Equality Duty does not override the Code
Councillor Hill suggested that the Code appeared to conflict with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
That misunderstands the relationship between them.
The Public Sector Equality Duty is contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
It applies across protected characteristics. It does not authorise a Council to prefer one politically favoured interpretation of equality over the meaning of the statute established by the Supreme Court.
The Government’s equality impact assessment explains that the purpose of the updated Code is to clarify the law and facilitate compliance with the Equality Act.
For Brighton & Hove, proper compliance means considering the effects of policy upon transgender people. It also means considering women and girls, disabled residents, survivors of sexual or domestic violence, people receiving intimate care, religious communities, employees and those holding protected gender-critical beliefs.
The duty requires evidence and serious consideration of competing impacts.
It does not operate as an escape clause from statutory guidance.
The TNBI Roundtable is relevant, but it is not the whole equality exercise
Councillor Alexander said that the Council was meeting regularly with transgender, non-binary and intersex representatives through its TNBI Roundtable.
That is a legitimate and potentially valuable part of the Council’s work.
People directly affected by policies should be heard. The Council should understand where transgender residents or employees fear humiliation, exclusion or discriminatory treatment.
The difficulty arises if this is presented as the principal or only consultation relevant to implementation.
The new Code concerns legal duties affecting a range of groups whose needs may intersect or conflict. Women using refuges or communal facilities, disabled people requiring intimate assistance, survivors of sexual violence, Council employees, service managers, faith communities and those with protected philosophical beliefs may all be affected.
An impartial process should therefore include them.
This does not mean treating transgender residents as less deserving of consultation. It means recognising that equality governance cannot consist of hearing one constituency and then deciding how to “mitigate” the lawful effects of guidance upon that group.
The Council’s task is to understand the consequences for all relevant protected characteristics and to make proportionate decisions within the law.
“Trans-inclusive” must be translated into lawful practice
Councillor Alexander repeatedly promised that Brighton & Hove would remain a “trans-inclusive Council”.
That phrase may describe a proper commitment. It may mean protecting transgender residents and employees from harassment and unlawful discrimination, treating people with courtesy, ensuring access to public services and providing appropriate alternative arrangements where necessary.
All of that may be consistent with the new Code.
The phrase becomes problematic if it means that self-declared gender identity will continue to determine a person’s sex for every legal and administrative purpose.
That position would not be compatible with the Supreme Court judgment.
The Council must therefore explain what “trans-inclusive” means operationally.
How will public records distinguish sex and gender reassignment where both are relevant?
How will lawful single-sex services operate?
How will transgender people be protected from unlawful discrimination?
What alternative provision will be considered where a person cannot access a service restricted by sex?
How will employees be trained to avoid both unlawful exclusion and unlawful erosion of sex-based provision?
A value statement is not an implementation plan.
The Council has not been taken by surprise
Councillor Alexander said:
“There is a team within the Council working on these issues.”
She then added:
“I hope that in a couple of months’ time I will be able to stand here and answer more clearly.”
The timetable makes that answer difficult to defend.
The Supreme Court delivered judgment in April 2025. The updated Code was laid before Parliament on 21 May 2026. The commencement regulations were made on 14 July. The Code takes effect on 5 August.
The Council has therefore had extensive notice that legal and policy review would be required.
By the time of the Full Council exchange, commencement was not a distant possibility. It was imminent.
The Council should already be able to identify which policies and services are being reviewed, which officer is accountable, what legal principles are being applied, how staff are being trained and what arrangements will operate from 5 August.
Saying that a team is working on the problem provides almost no public accountability.
Promising clarity “in a couple of months” means promising it after the Code has already entered into force.
The most striking omission: no mention of women
One feature of the exchange was particularly revealing.
There was repeated reference to the effect of the judgment and Code upon transgender and non-binary people. There was reference to the TNBI Roundtable, trans inclusion, pain and harm.
There was no comparable acknowledgment of why sex-based provisions exist or of the people whose rights and needs they protect.
Women and girls were absent from the answer.
So were survivors of sexual violence, users of female-only services, disabled women requiring intimate care, religious women and others for whom sex-based privacy may be important.
That imbalance matters.
The Code was not produced merely to impose restrictions upon transgender people. It clarifies how the Equality Act protects sex as well as gender reassignment and how institutions should apply lawful exceptions relating to separate and single-sex services.
A Council undertaking equality analysis must begin with all relevant protected groups in view.
The language of “mitigating harms” to one constituency, without any corresponding recognition of the rights or needs of another, suggests that the authority may be approaching the issue from a predetermined hierarchy of concern.
Emotion became a substitute for governance
The supplementary response was compassionate but strikingly empty of administrative content.
Councillor Alexander said she was sorry. She recognised pain. She said the situation was difficult. She referred to a team working on the matter and hoped to know more later.
None of those statements answered how the Council would comply.
No policy review was identified.
No implementation timetable was given.
No legal framework was explained.
No responsible officer was named.
No consultation beyond the TNBI Roundtable was described.
No distinction was drawn between political campaigning and administrative duty.
This is not a criticism of empathy. Empathy is necessary in public life.
The problem arises when empathy is used in place of governance, especially where the question concerns the imminent commencement of statutory guidance.
Councillor Hill asked why transgender people should trust the Government. Councillor Alexander answered as a sympathetic political colleague.
The Council also needed an answer from someone exercising responsibility for a public authority.
It did not receive one.
The wider institutional pattern
This exchange should be read alongside the earlier Full Council discussion concerning SEND, WellBN and parental safeguarding concerns.
In that exchange, the Council was asked what had changed to ensure that concerns about vulnerable children would be approached with professional curiosity.
The answer identified no change. It stated that the Council had not operated WellBN and expressed confidence in existing governance.
Here, the Council was asked how it would implement a new statutory Code.
Again, the answer was primarily declaratory.
The Council would remain trans-inclusive.
The guidance was flawed and confusing.
A team was working on it.
A fuller answer might come later.
Taken together, the exchanges suggest a recurring institutional habit. When evidence or law challenges an established position, the Council begins by defending its identity and values rather than explaining what it has reviewed, learned or changed.
That is a governance problem.
Confidence is not evidence.
Compassion is not implementation.
Political principle is not legal advice.
The relevance to the Council’s wider policies
The updated Code concerns services, public functions and associations. Separate statutory and technical frameworks govern schools.
The Council’s public position nevertheless matters beyond the immediate services covered by this Code.
Brighton & Hove has historically embedded concepts of transgender inclusion across employment, public services, safeguarding and education. It has promoted a Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit and related curriculum approaches which must now be reviewed alongside the Supreme Court judgment, Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026, revised statutory RSHE guidance and the developing EHRC guidance for schools.
The Full Council exchange raises a legitimate concern about the spirit in which those reviews will be conducted.
Will the authority ask neutrally what the law and evidence now require?
Or will it begin from the political assumption that the new framework is harmful and seek to retain as much of the previous approach as possible?
Parents, governors, employees and residents are entitled to know.
What the Council should publish
Brighton & Hove City Council should publish an implementation statement before 5 August.
It should identify the services, public functions, workplace policies and facilities under review.
It should name the senior officer accountable for compliance and provide the implementation timetable.
It should explain how the Council understands the legal distinction between sex and gender reassignment.
It should set out how transgender people will continue to be protected from unlawful discrimination and how lawful single-sex services will be maintained.
It should identify the range of affected groups being consulted, rather than referring only to the TNBI Roundtable.
It should clarify whether the description of the Code as “flawed and confusing” is official Council policy, the political administration’s position or an individual councillor’s view.
It should also explain what “trans-inclusive Council” means in concrete legal and operational terms.
The Council need not publish privileged legal advice. It can and should publish the principles it intends to apply and the practical decisions arising from them.
Dignity and legality are not opposites
The exchange repeatedly implied that recognising biological sex under the Equality Act and treating transgender people with dignity are incompatible aims.
They are not.
A Council can recognise sex where the law requires it and still treat transgender residents with humanity.
It can preserve lawful single-sex services without alleging that transgender people are predators.
It can provide appropriate alternatives without humiliating those who use them.
It can protect transgender employees from harassment while respecting the lawful rights, privacy and beliefs of others.
It can acknowledge Councillor Hill’s pain without endorsing an inaccurate description of the judgment or Code.
It can campaign democratically for Parliament to amend the law while obeying the law now in force.
The task is not to choose between legality and dignity.
It is to uphold both.
At Full Council, the public heard that the Code was “flawed and confusing”, that the Council would remain trans-inclusive, that a team was working on the issue and that a clearer answer might be available in several months.
The Code takes effect on 5 August.
Brighton & Hove residents deserve that clearer answer before then.
1. UK Supreme Court, For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, judgment and press summary, 16 April 2025.
2. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations 2026, particularly Chapter 1 on the status and purpose of the statutory Code.
3. The Equality Act 2010 (Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations) Order 2026, SI 2026/788, made 14 July 2026 and coming into force on 5 August 2026.
4. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3; EHRC, Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations 2026, provisions concerning separate and single-sex services.
5. Equality Act 2010, sections 7, 13, 19, 26 and 27; EHRC, Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations 2026, chapters concerning protected characteristics, discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
6. Equality Act 2010, section 149; Office for Equality and Opportunity, Equality Impact Assessment: Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations 2026, revised 15 July 2026.
7. Brighton & Hove City Council Full Council meeting, public question and supplementary exchange between Councillors Raphael Hill and Mitchie Alexander, 23 July 2026; official meeting recording supplied by the Council.