NHS Fife spends £220,000 defending Sandie Peggie tribunal
The health board's legal fees came to light only after it was forced to comply with a ruling from Scotland's information commissioner, following persistent freedom of information requests.
The legal battle centres on an employment tribunal about a transgender doctor, who was born male but identifies as a woman, using a female changing room.
Peggie was suspended from her work at the Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy on January 3 last year after she complained about having to share changing facilities with Dr Beth Upton, who is transgender.
When she saw Upton in the female facilities for a third time, Peggie expressed her view that the doctor was a man and should not be in the female changing room. Upton then made an allegation of bullying and harassment.
The incidents alleged by Upton took place before the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
Details of the spending followed pressure from media outlets, which were denied access to the sums involved by NHS Fife. The information watchdog discovered the health officials failed to undertake any searches in response to the request for information.
Tess White, equalities spokeswoman for the Scottish Tories, accused NHS Fife of a 'sleekit' move by trying to 'slip out [the costs] in the hope nobody will see it'.
'They have spent months rejecting legitimate requests to reveal how much taxpayers' money they are squandering on this case,' she said.
'The sum spent so far taking Sandie Peggie to a tribunal could have gone to frontline healthcare services which are overwhelmed due to 18 years of SNP mismanagement.
'Senior figures within the health board must come clean about why this figure was not revealed sooner and how much more money from the public purse they expect to waste when the case resumes.'
The £220,000 spent on the employment tribunal is more than the £160,000 that the Scottish government spent on legal costs for its Supreme Court case on the definition of a woman, though the sum may rise further because the issue of costs is unresolved.
David Hamilton, Scotland's information commissioner, ordered NHS Fife to 'carry out adequate, proportionate searches' and provide a response by July 14 this year. However, rather than directly addressing the media, NHS Fife chose to discreetly publish the financial details on its website.
In a statement, the health board said: 'NHS Fife can confirm that, as of May 31, 2025, a total of £220,465.93 has been incurred in legal costs relating to an ongoing employment tribunal case brought against the board.'
Peggie is suing the health board as well as Upton after being suspended following the row.
She was placed on 'special leave' in late December 2023 and suspended pending an investigation into 'alleged unwanted behaviours towards another member of NHS Fife staff'. Although her suspension was lifted in April, the disciplinary process against her remains active.
Peggie subsequently lodged legal proceedings against NHS Fife and Upton, alleging 'multiple breaches of the Equality Act 2010'. What was initially scheduled to be a ten-day tribunal concluding in February has now dragged on and was adjourned until next Wednesday, with an additional 11 days of hearings anticipated. This extension is partly attributed to NHS Fife's apparent failure to disclose crucial documentation as ordered by the tribunal judge, further prolonging the costly proceedings.
Adding to the controversy are serious questions regarding NHS Fife's compliance with legal obligations. Specifically, concerns have been raised about whether the board acted lawfully in allowing Upton, who does not hold a gender recognition certificate, to use a single-sex facility.
The spotlight on NHS Fife intensified after the Supreme Court's ruling that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. This landmark decision has amplified calls for the health board to concede the case, raising further questions about its continuing legal strategy and the financial implications for public healthcare.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Study shows genes contribute to chance of developing debilitating disease
A new study, DecodeME, has found significant DNA differences in people with ME / chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), offering the first robust evidence that genes contribute to developing the serious disease. Researchers identified eight distinct areas of genetic code in ME/CFS patients that are markedly different from those without the condition, primarily involving genes linked to the immune and nervous systems. At least two of the genetic signals relate to how the body responds to infection, aligning with long-standing patient reports that the onset of ME/CFS symptoms often follows an infectious illness. The findings are expected to boost credibility for ME/CFS patients, helping to rebuff the stigma and lack of belief often associated with the condition. The DecodeME study, described as the world's largest of its kind, analysed DNA samples from over 15,000 participants. The key genetic difference ME sufferers have from others – and what it means
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘NHS cut funding to my 98-year-old grandmother because she didn't die on time'
The NHS has been accused of leaving a 98-year-old to 'die without dignity' after cutting vital care funding with just days' notice. Pearl Henderson, a grandmother from Bradford with end-stage dementia, was fast-tracked on to NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) in 2023. Under this valuable scheme, the NHS pays for care if a patient has serious long-term health problems. But on Friday, the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) axed Ms Henderson's funding despite her extremely weak condition requiring 13 hours of care per day. It comes as experts warn of a 'troubling' rise in NHS CHC patients getting their funding axed in end of life care, particularly in cases involving the Fast Track Pathway due to widespread budget cuts. The decision means the local authority will now foot the bill for Ms Henderson's care, but they can only afford to pay for 2.5 hours worth of visits every 24 hours. Ms Henderson's family fear the sharp drop in care hours will cause the 98-year-old's condition to rapidly deteriorate. 'They're bringing forward her death' Her granddaughter Kirstie Lumley, 36, from North Yorkshire, said: 'She's really frail, she probably weighs about four and a half stone now, she needs constant care, she has absolutely no mental cognition any more. 'We're not trying to extend her life at all, she's 98, but we're trying to get her to die with some kind of dignity. 'She's going to be sat for 21 hours a day alone, soiled. All they're doing is bringing forward her death, leaving her unsafe and unclean. The thought of it is heartbreaking.' Ms Lumley is concerned the ICB ended her grandmother's care package in order to cut costs. 'She was fast-tracked with dementia in 2023 and she's basically lived longer than expected. From their perspective, she hasn't died on time. She was expected to die within six weeks of leaving hospital.' Judith Cummins, MP for Bradford South, said her constituent's situation was 'deeply distressing'. She said: 'I have been in contact with the West Yorkshire ICB to seek an urgent review of Pearl's case, and I will continue to support Pearl, Kirstie, and their family on this matter. 'I will always fight to ensure that my constituents can live with dignity.' Extreme funding cuts A growing body of evidence suggests this is not an isolated incident but part of a concerning trend. Data obtained by The Telegraph shows a rise in the number of vulnerable patients stripped of critical funding by the NHS. Last year 1,600 individuals lost access to continuing healthcare following a review by the ICB, up from around 1,300 the year before, according to figures from 16 of England's 42 ICBs. These organisations are responsible for deciding who qualifies for CHC funding. Of the 16 ICBs that provided data in response to Freedom of Information requests, 12 had seen a year-on-year increase in funding withdrawals. In some cases, the number of withdrawals had more than doubled over time. For example, NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB cut funding for 127 individuals last year – up from 72 the year before and just 23 in 2021-22. Similarly, NHS Greater Manchester ICB decided 191 individuals were no longer eligible for funding last year following an assessment – up from 185 the year before and just 107 in 2021-22. Meanwhile the NHS Suffolk and North East Essex ICB stopped paying for care for 62 individuals last year, compared to 15 in 2023-24 and fewer than five in 2021-22. Experts blamed the cuts on funding pressures. Jane Townson, of the Homecare Association, said: 'The driver is that NHS ICBs are required to reduce running costs by 50pc, so there is cost cutting all over the place.' This year, ICBs were asked to reduce budgets as part of the Government's major NHS reforms. But this has put more pressure on local councils – who must often step in to cover the cost of care. Almost three quarters of social care directors have seen an increase in the number of people requesting care from local authorities because they no longer qualify for NHS CHC following an assessment, according to a recent survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. James Urquhart-Burton, of Winston Solicitors, said he had noticed a 'troubling' rise in NHS CHC patients getting their funding axed, particularly in cases involving the Fast Track Pathway. Fast Track is intended for patients who may be approaching the end of their life. But Mr Urquhart-Burton said he had seen ICBs cutting Fast Track CHC funding 'within weeks' of granting it. He went on: 'These cases often involve individuals who are rapidly deteriorating and entering a terminal phase – precisely the circumstances Fast Track CHC is designed to support.' Ms Henderson, who first obtained funding under the Fast Track, requires regular visits throughout the day to feed and clean her and prevent her from accidentally harming herself, for example, by falling out of bed. She used to receive eight 30-minute visits plus a nine-hour night sit, totalling 13 hours of care every 24 hours. But the local authority can only stretch to four 30-minute visits per day and one 30-minute visit at night. Ms Lumley believes the NHS West Yorkshire ICB failed to follow the correct procedure when reassessing her grandmother's needs. Vulnerable patients pay the price ICBs use a complex set of criteria to assess health conditions. According to NHS guidelines, reviews should take place after three months, and at least every 12 months after that, to check if the care package remains appropriate. After that time period, the person may be fully reassessed. However, the guidelines state it is not appropriate to reassess a person given funding through the Fast Track who is rapidly deteriorating. Ms Lumley said there was no evidence a review took place before her grandmother was reassessed. In addition, an assessor told her the funding was going to be cut before they had even finished the assessment. 'When the CHC assessor came into the meeting, she said, 'I'm not here to make a decision, I'm just here to fact find.' And then before she'd even left the meeting she said, 'Look, usually we'd go away and discuss it but, I'll be really honest with you now, we're going to pull it.'' Mr Urquhart-Burton said he had seen more ICBs giving up on preliminary reviews. 'In many instances, these assessments are being arranged without a preliminary review of whether the care arrangements remain appropriate, as outlined in the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare. 'This not only undermines the intent of Fast Track funding but also places undue pressure on families, who are often given very short notice and little support in navigating the process.' Ms Lumley said: 'We were so proud of the NHS, it stood out across the world. And now, you look at it and think: 'What happened?' 'My grandmother has paid tax all her life, and she's never claimed a penny. All the hundreds of thousands of pounds she's paid in tax throughout the years, and it doesn't give you the ability to die with dignity in the UK.' A spokesman for NHS West Yorkshire ICB said: 'We have a responsibility to ensure that continuing healthcare decisions are fair, transparent, and based on assessed need, in accordance with the National Framework for NHS continuing healthcare and NHS-funded nursing care. 'These assessments often involve people who are frail or have multiple needs, with families and carers providing considerable support. We appreciate that continuing healthcare decisions can be significant for individuals and families, especially in complex and sensitive circumstances, with outcomes potentially causing some disappointment and distress. 'While we cannot comment on individual cases, we can confirm that we are reviewing the matters raised here in line with our policy and complaints process.' A spokesman for NHS England said: 'Eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare funding is determined on an individual basis by health and social care professionals in line with government guidance and regulation, to ensure there is a consistent approach across the country.' A spokesman for NHS Greater Manchester ICB said: 'While we've seen a rise in referrals and fast-track cases across Greater Manchester, which can lead to more reviews and occasional funding changes, all decisions are made using a nationally governed framework that ensures consistency, fairness, and transparency. 'Our priority remains to support individuals with compassion and ensure their care needs are fully met.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Danielle Lloyd hits out at 'dangerous and false' sunscreen information amid skin cancer battle - after Sam Faiers wrongly claimed many SPF brands are 'harmful'
has hit out at 'dangerous and false' sunscreen information amid her battle with skin cancer. The mother-of-five was diagnosed with melanoma in February and went under the knife to remove a mole above her collarbone earlier this year. On Wednesday, Danielle wanted to make her followers aware of the 'false information' being spread on social media about sunscreen being 'toxic and causing cancer'. It comes after Sam Faiers admitted she doesn't put sunscreen on her children in a controversial statement on SPF, where she claimed some brands are 'harmful' and full of 'toxic ingredients'. Danielle shared on Instagram: 'I've got people in my comments saying that, "sunscreen is full of toxins and it can cause cancer. 'This is false information. It is not true, and it is highly dangerous information. This has started on TikTok and wherever else it started, but it's false. 'We are highly regulated in the UK, and these products would not be on the shelves if they were full of toxins that could give you cancer. 'I understand people read things and believe them, but please don't spread lies because it is so dangerous. People need to protect themselves, and one of those things is by using sunscreen.' In recent months, doctors have been forced to speak out after videos claiming sun tan lotion contains chemicals that are 'more cancerous than the sun', have racked up tens of thousands of views on TikTok. Among those peddling the information are influencers with thousands of followers, including Lauryn Goodman and Kelsey Parker. Most recently, Sam was branded 'irresponsible and naive' by a horrified skin doctor after admitting her three children don't wear sunscreen because she wrongly claimed many SPF brands are 'harmful'. Dr Perry, who is the owner of skin clinics chain Cosmedics , claimed the reality star is 'misleading' fans into not using sunscreen on their children and it can 'double the risk of getting skin cancer' as they 'do not build up a tolerance to sun exposure'. Sam revealed that she doesn't use suncream on her children by sharing a snap of her youngest son Edward, two, playing in the shade. She wrote: 'So this is always a bit of a controversial one, but honestly, me and my whole family don't actually wear sunscreen. 'Over the years, the kids have built up a really good tolerance to being in the sun. Of course if it's really hot and the sun feels too harsh I'll make sure we head into the shade... usually around lunchtime we'll go in, have something to eat and just avoid those peak hours. 'I'm really careful about sunscreen in general, because a lot of them are actually pretty harmful and full of toxic ingredients.' Danielle's post comes after she revealed she had undergone another operation after spotting an unusual mole on her torso that needed to be sent off for a biopsy. Taking to Instagram, she shared a video of her experience, revealing that while the procedure was quick and painless, she would have to wait two months to find out whether the mole was cancerous. Showing off the mole in her video, she explained: 'I t only looks small but it's definitely changed in colour and size.' Documenting her time in hospital, she confessed: 'I was a little bit apprehensive when I was waiting but then I was absolutely fine going in.' Showing off the markings on her stomach ahead of surgery, she added: 'I had to laugh because it looked like they'd drawn the evil eye on my belly.' Danielle then showed off her scar as she continued: 'When I got home I was a little bit sore and a little bit swollen but overall I'm just looking forward to getting some positive results.' She finished her video by urging her followers to ' know the signs [of skin cancer] and protect yourself from the sun'. Danielle captioned the clip: 'Trigger Warning ⚠️ Today I had another surgery to remove another mole — this time on my stomach. 'We're hoping it's just a precaution, but I'll be waiting 8–10 weeks for results. 'Please don't ignore any changes to your skin. I never thought this would happen to me… until it did. Early detection saves lives — skin cancer is highly treatable when caught early. 'If something doesn't look or feel right, see a doctor. Protect your skin: ☀️ Use high SPF. Cover up. Say no to sunbeds. Look after yourself and those around you'. She added the hashtags: '#SkinCancerAwareness #Melanoma #StaySafeInTheSun #GetChecked #SunSafety #protectyourskin'. Danielle then shut down misinformation around SPF after a fan commented: 'Check ingredients in Sun cream!! Chemicals awareness'. The former pageant queen responded: 'that's actually false information and it's people posting causing people to believe it if suncream was harmful it wouldn't be sold in shop out beauty and health industry is so heavily regulated honestly it's a load of rubbish x 'When I went to Westminster a few weeks ago to speak about sun safety I was told it's false information? 'Some no branded ones maybe but people on TikTok have been spouting false information and making people throw away suncream and not use it which is so dangerous xx' Elsewhere in the comments, Danielle revealed how she came across the mole. She explained: 'the specialist actually recommended this one be removed I went for my 6 month check and they just said as precaution they wanted to remove.' She also put a fan at ease who was also due to have a mole removed but was worried it would be painful. Danielle shared: 'T hey give you anaesthetic injections to numb the area so you don't feel it just feels like tugging.' While Danielle was praised by many for helping to spread awareness, the following morning she revealed that vile trolls had also commented on the post. She revealed she'd been branded: ' old, haggard, too thin, basically disgusting'. Hitting back on her Stories, she shared: 'I don't give a f**k if you think I look old, I'm 41, I'm not 20 no more. 'I've got five beautiful kids, I've got a lovely husband, I've got a lovely life. 'If you think I'm old and haggard then fine but your opinion does not matter to me... 'They're just weird, weird people, get a life.' Earlier this year Danielle revealed to her fans she had been diagnosed with skin cancer in an emotional post . Struggling to hold back the tears, the heartbroken star said: 'I don't really know how to say this and I didn't know whether to come on and say this but I feel like I have to raise awareness of this kind of thing happening to other people. 'Today I have been diagnosed with a form of skin cancer.' She urged: 'I just want to raise awareness for anyone who thinks they've got something funny on their body, they see a mole growing, which is not normal - please please please go to your doctor because honestly, you just never know.' The model went on to say that she'd been 'really shocked' by what she'd been told earlier in the day, but before going on to praise the Macmillan nurses at the hospital for their support.
