NHS Fife calls in cops over threats to staff in controversial tribunal case

In a statement published just as the tribunal was concluding for the day, the health board also hit out at the organisation Sex Matters, whose chair is the KC representing the claimaint in the case, nurse Sandie Peggie.

She has taken NHS Fife to tribunal alleging harassment under the Equality Act, as well as sexual harassment, after being suspended from her role in Kirkcaldy's Victoria Hospital.

She was relieved of her duties after a row with a transgender doctor, Beth Upton, who Ms Peggie believed should not use the female changing room. Dr Upton is a biological man who identifies as a woman, but who NHS Fife had given permission to use the female facilities. The incident happened on December 23, 2023.

A separate internal disciplinary procedure against Ms Peggie has already concluded, clearing her of all allegations of gross misconduct in her dealings with Dr Upton.

In the surprise statement this afternoon, NHS Fife said it was "having to defend" itself and wanted to answer questions posed by the press and politicians, addressing "misinformation" online.

It urged for respect for "the privacy of all those giving evidence", following "significant and very polarised debate" on social media.

Read more: NHS nurse who complained about trans doctor using female changing rooms cleared of gross misconduct

Read more: Doctor and husband who sold PPE stolen from NHS during pandemic jailed

The statement said: "In some cases, however, what began as debate has evolved into much more worrying behaviour, including a threat of physical harm and sexual violence, which has required the involvement of Police Scotland."

It added that staff should be able to work "without being subjected to unacceptable personal attacks and trolling on social media", and criticised Sex Matters, the charity which is funding Ms Peggie's legal team, for allegedly "steering public opinion".

It said: "The claimant's case is being supported by Sex Matters, whose chief executive officer and co-founder was called as a witness by the claimant in the earlier hearing.

"The claimant's barrister is also chair of Sex Matters. Other members of the organisation's 'advisory group' have provided commentary to the media on a number of occasions where no reference is made to their direct involvement."

But Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said the statement was "an extraordinary intervention from NHS Fife, even by the board's standards. NHS Fife has dug itself into a reputational black hole.

"If the only way forward the board can see is to lash out, including by criticising Sex Matters, which has at all times acted with propriety and in pursuit of its charitable objects, that suggests desperation."

When the statement was mentioned at the employment tribunal on Friday, Ms Peggie's junior counsel Charlotte Elves said it caused "some concern".

She said part of the reason the tribunal was taking place in Dundee and not in Edinburgh as originally planned was "at least in part because of threats made against the claimant's legal team back in January.

"At that time the claimant never publicly sought to describe that state of affairs or attribute those threats from members of the public with any of the parties, legal representatives or witnesses in these proceedings, because obviously doing so would be entirely improper.

"Unfortunately it would appear paragraphs three and four of this statement is identifying clearly the chief executive of Sex Matters who is a witness in these proceedings, and the claimant's barrister who is self evidently a representative in these proceedings.

"And it describes that organisation's involvement in the media and the suggestion that the organisation has perhaps been involved in steering public opinion in a certain way and seems to conclude that in the context of this debate and public opinion that's evolved into something more worrying, including threats of violence... I think it's fair to say that this statement published on day three of proceedings is of some concern... it seems to us that is altogether quite an improper ste in proceedings, and that's before addressing any other matters as clear factual inaccuracies."

She added: "We are concerned that is is irresponsible and potentially unsafe for us in the context of what we already know."

However Jane Russell KC, representing NHS Fife, said: "Unfortunately because this hearing has taken place in public, Fife's witnesses have been exposed to a very unsafe environment and I'm afraid threats have been made to them as have threats been made to me."

She said that in reading the statement "there doesn't appear to be anything in it that is untrue. If it's being suggested that there's some sort of defamation of anybody involved I don't think that is an issue for the tribunal to determine.

"It's a bit of a stretch to say that paragraph three [on Sex Matters] is leading to paragraph four [on threats] so that the roles of people mentioned are associated with the very worrying treatemnt that FIfe's witnesses have been subjected to. I certainly don't make that connection and I don't think anybody with a reasonable outlook would."

She said she had been unaware of threats made to Sandie Peggie's legal team but that it was important everyone taking part in the tribunal felt safe, adding that NHS Fife had Article 10 rights to be able to "say what it wants".

Tribunal Judge Alexander Kemp said: "No participant whether witness, representative or participant should be intimidated and if that has happened its a matter for the criminal courts and Police Scotland.

"Obviously matters of defamation are not within our jurisdiction."

A Police Scotland spokesperson told LBC: “We have received information and it is being assessed.”

The health board also insisted in the statement that its actions in investigating Ms Peggie "were not punitive", and reiterated that an investigation was launched due to allegations concerning patient care, which were not upheld following a disciplinary hearing on June 25.

The health board said: "While the claimant raised concerns about a trans woman's use of a locker room, this was not the reason that NHS Fife's internal investigation was initiated.

"As made clear during tribunal proceedings, the disciplinary process was initiated due to concerns raised about interactions with a colleague and patient care."

It said that the 18-month investigation was "not of itself punitive" and said that the probe was believed to be "fair and impartial".

The health board also said that as of June 30, legal costs had increased to £258,831.31, an increase of almost £40,000 from May 31, when costs were £220,465.93, with the majority covered by Central Legal Office (CLO) and National Services Scotland (NSS) who administer the CNORIS Indemnity scheme.

It said: "NHS Fife is liable for the first £25,000 of costs associated with defending the case."

The statement said: "The Health Board appreciates that there are deeply entrenched views on both sides of the debate around single-sex spaces and has never sought to stifle fair and reasoned debate on the topic, asking only that any media coverage is respectful, fair, balanced, accurate, and distinguishes fact from opinion."

It added: "NHS Fife acknowledges the Supreme Court's ruling and other developments in this area.

"Work is under way across the entirety of the health board's estate (including toilets, changing and locker rooms) to identify areas where any adaptions may be required and schedule any work that may be necessary to improve facilities."