Latest news with #DecisionNotice
Scotsman
18-07-2025
- Health
- Scotsman
Lawyers for nurse Sandie Peggie condemn 'irresponsible' statement from NHS Fife
Police Scotland 'assessing' health board's reports of threats linked to high-profile case involving trans doctor Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Lawyers for a nurse who was suspended after she complained about sharing a hospital changing room with a trans doctor have condemned as 'irrsponsible' a statement on the case released by NHS Fife. The health board published the four-page document online while evidence was being heard in a case brought by nurse Sandie Peggie. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Peggie was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy on Christmas Eve 2023. The employment tribunal triggered "a threat of physical harm and sexual violence" against NHS staff, according to the health board's statement. After the statement was raised, Judge Alexander Kemp said he would assess it before making any public comment and the tribunal was adjourned for the weekend. A Police Scotland spokesperson said: "We have received information and it is being assessed." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Meanwhile, Scotland's Information Commissioner condemned the 'petulant tone' and said he would investigate whether it amounted to contempt of court. He said: 'The petulant tone of NHS Fife's latest statement is quite remarkable but it is the contents that concern me most. 'They have now cast doubt upon the assurances they gave me regarding compliance with my Decision Notice. 'I will investigate further and if the Authority has not indeed fully complied with my Decision then I may report the matter to the Court of Session as a contempt of court.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the statement, NHS Fife said police had to be called after staff faced threats of 'physical harm and sexual violence', as the health board sought to defend its actions. The update from NHS Fife also revealed that legal costs have increased by £38,000 in just one month. 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. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 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. Supporters of Sandie Peggie arrive to show their support for the nurse at her tribunal | Lisa Ferguson / The Scotsman 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.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad NHS Fife later edited the statement, adding: "To be clear NHS Fife is not seeking to suggest that anyone involved with Sex Matters have contributed to the behaviour or issues mentioned above." Make sure you keep up to date with news from across Scotland by signing up to our free newsletter here. The health board insisted 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. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad '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 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.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 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.' Nurse Sandie Peggie arriving at her tribunal hearing this week. | Lisa Ferguson / The Scotsman Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'This is an extraordinary intervention from NHS Fife, even by the board's standards. 'NHS Fife has dug itself into a reputational black hole. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad '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: "It is a matter of some concern that a party of proceedings seems to link a witness in these proceedings with the conduct of members of the public, including threats of physical violence." She said this seemed "improper" action from NHS Fife, adding: "This is quite unusual conduct of a party in proceedings and we are concerned that it is irresponsible and unsafe in the context of what we already know and it is for that reason that we bring it to the attention of the tribunal." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 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.' 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.
The Herald Scotland
18-07-2025
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
NHS Fife faces new FOI probe over Sandie Peggie case
The health board published a lengthy statement on Friday, addressing what it described as "misinformation" around the case. NHS Fife insisted it had acted transparently and accused the campaign group Sex Matters, which is supporting Ms Peggie, of attempting to 'steer public opinion'. READ MORE It claimed reports suggesting it had been compelled to release cost information by the Scottish Information Commissioner were 'inaccurate.' The statement said: "The information commissioner stated in his decision cited above that: 'the withheld information the Authority provided to the Commissioner was obtained from CLO after the date it received the Applicants' requests. This means the Commissioner cannot make a finding on, or require disclosure of, this information in his decision notice.' "NHS Fife subsequently made the decision to publish the figures on its website up until 31 May 2025 in the interests of transparency, and on the basis that similar information was being actively sought." However, Decision 133/2025 — issued by the Commissioner earlier this month — was highly critical of NHS Fife's refusal to answer requests from The Herald and others about how much [[pub]]lic money had been spent defending the case. At the time of the ruling, Mr Hamilton found NHS Fife had not undertaken any searches for the information and had repeatedly argued it was exempt from disclosure. He dismissed those claims and ordered the board to carry out 'adequate, proportionate searches' and respond to applicants by Sunday July 14. Following the ruling, NHS Fife quietly published figures on its website confirming it had spent £220,465.93 on the case as of May 31. That figure has since risen to £258,831.31, though the board insists its direct liability is capped at £25,000 under the national CNORIS indemnity scheme. READ MORE In a strongly worded statement, Mr Hamilton said: 'The petulant tone of NHS Fife's latest statement is quite remarkable, but it is the contents that concern me most. 'They have now cast doubt upon the assurances they gave me regarding compliance with my Decision Notice. I will investigate further and, if the Authority has not indeed fully complied with my Decision, then I may report the matter to the Court of Session as a contempt of court.' The health board has already been forced to amend its statement after Ms Peggie's legal team accused it of linking threats of sexual violence to the nurse's supporters. During Friday's hearing, the claimant's barrister, Charlotte Elves, said it was 'a matter of some concern' that the health board appeared to be associating the actions of anonymous individuals online with Sex Matters, which is supporting Ms Peggie. She pointed to paragraph three of the NHS Fife statement, which referenced the organisation's CEO, Maya Forstater, who has already given evidence, and the group's chair, barrister Naomi Cunningham KC, who is leading Ms Peggie's case. The next paragraph states that while the case had attracted 'significant and very polarised debate' on social media, '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'. Ms Elves told the tribunal: 'Paragraph four of the statement seems to conclude that [Sex Matters' involvement] has resulted in more worrying behaviour that has involved Police Scotland. It is a matter of some concern that a party to proceedings seems to link a witness in these proceedings with the conduct of members of the public, including threats of physical violence.' She added: 'This is quite unusual conduct of a party in proceedings, and we are concerned that it is irresponsible and unsafe in the context of what we already know.' NHS Fife's senior counsel, Jane Russell KC, said she had only just seen the statement and asked for more time to consider it. However, she rejected the suggestion that it contained anything defamatory or untrue. 'It is a bit of a stretch to say that paragraph three is leading to paragraph four,' she said. 'There is no way NHS Fife's statement could be seen to directly link the threats to those involved with Sex Matters.' She argued that the context for the statement was important, stating: 'Because this has taken place in public, Fife's witnesses have been exposed to a very unsafe environment. I have received threats, as have witnesses.' Nevertheless, NHS Fife later tweaked the release, adding: 'To be clear, NHS Fife is not seeking to suggest that anyone involved with Sex Matters have contributed to the behaviour or issues mentioned above.' The Peggie tribunal resumed this week after a five-month adjournment. Ms Peggie, an A&E nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, is suing the board and her colleague, Dr Beth Upton, after she was suspended for raising objections to the trans doctor's use of a female changing room on Christmas Eve 2023.
Leader Live
10-06-2025
- Business
- Leader Live
Wrexham Council rejects call to change hybrid working policy
The decision to implement the new policy from September 1 this year was made at Executive Board in May. But the decision was called-in by members of the Customers, Performance, Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee who felt their concerns, plus the views of staff who were consulted, were not fairly reflected. Wrexham Council has refused to change its proposed hybrid working model - sticking to offering workers one day of home working per week despite staff overwhelmingly supporting a three-two split. The decision to implement the new policy from September 1 this year was made at Executive Board in May. But the decision was called-in by members of the Customers, Performance, Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee who felt their concerns, plus the views of staff who were consulted, were not fairly reflected. The original consultation saw 90.7% of staff support the model that most of the council's 1,589 hybrid workers currently work - three days in the office, two from home. It was also noted that a significant number of employees used free-text boxes to call for a 50/50 average split for the working week. A majority of respondents - 78.8% - said an increase in office time would negatively impact recruitment and retention of staff. Staff also highlighted that flexible working arrangements had improved their health and wellbeing at work. Presenting its findings to the Executive Board on Tuesday, Customers, Performance, Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee chair Cllr Peter Howell said: "An extensive discussion took place at the scrutiny meeting on the matters outlined in the Call-In of Decision Notice. "Significant impacts were noted as workforce retention and morale, equality and legal risks, recruitment and retention, operational infrastructure, environmental consequences and service delivery risks. "Of national importance were the divergence from national public sector best practices in other Welsh councils, implications for Wrexham's reputation as an employer, conflict with national equality and employment guidance, the autonomy of middle-management and the alignment with Welsh Government objectives. "The controversy around the overwhelming staff opposition and the fact scrutiny had recommended office ratios be guidelines, not mandated were also noted. "There was no evidence-based justification for the 4:1 model and it contradicted staff consultation data, benchmarking result and external research." Following the call-in the committee presented two options to the council - to reconsider the proposal after 'recognising the policy justification is weak, conflicts with a number of existing strategic plans, undermines organisational culture, has numerous unidentified and unmitigated impact risks and is entirely un-costed' or to go with its original decision. Wrexham County Borough Council's Executive Board rejected the chance to amend the hybrid working policy, sticking to its plan to implement a 4:1 model from September this year. Lead member for Corporate and Customer Services Cllr Beverley Parry-Jones said all consultation feedback had been carefully considered. "While responses indicated a preference for home working, this was balanced against operational requirements, service needs and organisational priorities. "Our decision reflects a considered approach based on all factors. The consultation was however only focused on a small group and weighted towards existing home working staff. "Most of our staff do not have the opportunity to work remotely. "We acknowledge the concerns raised around staff retention and morale. While change can be challenging we believe a clear, consistent approach to workplace expectation helps provide clarity and support to all staff. "We recognise that workspace availability is key to ensuring an effective return to office-based work. The senior leadership team will be tasked with ensuring all staff have access to suitable working environments. "We remain committed to maintaining high standards of service delivery. Managers have been asked to continually review any potential risks arising from revised working practices." Read more: Wrexham council staff return to office for four days from September Wrexham hybrid working plans must be fair warns councillor Cllr Parry-Jones also said the board acknowledged the increased carbon impact that moving to a 4:1 working model would cause, suggesting that promoting car sharing and active travel routes would mitigate the effect. She dismissed claims of any legal or equality issues posed by the council's decision and said the board did not recognise sickness absence had improved over the last three years when hybrid working has been in place. The most recent available data shows that between since 2021/22 and 2023/24 on average council employees have reduced sickness absence by one day per person. "We reaffirm the decision made on the 13th of May 2025," said Cllr Parry-Jones. "We appreciate the engagement of all parties in this process and remain committed to ensuring a supportive and effective working environment for all staff. We are also committed to review the policy after 12 months." The recommendation not to change the original decision was voted through by the Executive Board with council leader Cllr Mark Pritchard exercising his power as chair to prevent any further debate on the item.
Associated Press
25-03-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Idaho Copper Announces US Forest Service Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for CuMo Exploration Project Plan
Boise, Idaho, March 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Idaho Copper Corp. (OTC Pink: COPR) is pleased to announce that on March 14, 2025 the United States Forest Service, Boise National Forest ('USFS') issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact under an Environmental Assessment approving the Company's Plan of Operations ('PoO') to conduct exploration drilling and related activities at its CuMo project located in Boise County, Idaho. Andrew Brodkey, Company CEO commented, 'This is a major milestone for Idaho Copper. We have been working with the Forest Service since 2016 to build a plan that complies with myriad federal laws and regulations to ensure that exploration activities at CuMo will not have any significant effect on the environment. The Forest Service has done an admirable job, with hundreds of pages of specialist reports addressing all conceivable environmental concerns from exploration. In addition, the Decision Notice requires the Company to implement dozens of mitigation measures and best management practices designed to protect the environment. Idaho Copper's work under the PoO will consist mainly of temporary road building, maintenance, and drilling activities, and requires that when complete, all roads, drillpads, and drillholes are properly closed and reclaimed. Most importantly, there will be no significant impact to the Boise River, its tributaries, or the Boise River Watershed, through the application of mitigating measures set forth in the Forest Service Decision Notice.' The exploration activities outlined in the PoO are needed to develop additional data to determine if a future decision to proceed with a mine is justified. Nothing beyond exploration has been approved by the Forest Service via this DN, and any decision to develop a mine is years away. Any such decision will depend, among other things, on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ('EIS') under federal law, in which the public will have the right to participate. About Idaho Copper Corporation Idaho Copper Corporation is a mineral exploration and development company focused on exploring and developing a massive copper-molybdenum-silver deposit in Idaho (United States), ('the CuMo' project). The CuMo project currently consists of one hundred and twenty-six (126) federal unpatented lode mining claims, and six (6) patented mining claims. In total, the project comprises approximately 2,640 acres. The unpatented lode mining claims and patented claims are situated in an unorganized mining district in Boise County, Idaho. For more information, visit: Safe Harbor Statement This press release contains forward looking statements which are based on current expectations, forecasts, and assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from those anticipated or expected. These statements are not historical facts but rather are based on the Company's current expectations, estimates, and projections regarding its business, operations and other similar or related factors. Words such as 'may,' 'will,' 'could,' 'would,' 'should,' 'anticipate,' 'predict,' 'potential,' 'continue,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'plan,' 'project,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' and other similar or related expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Actual results and the timing of certain events could differ materially from those projected in or contemplated by the forward-looking statements due to a number of factors. Stockholders and potential investors should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by the forward-looking statements in this report are reasonable, the Company cannot assure stockholders and potential investors that these plans, intentions or expectations will be achieved. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors, some of which are beyond the Company's control and difficult to predict and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in the forward-looking statements. Except to the extent required by law, the Company has no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in events, conditions, circumstances or assumptions underlying such statements, or otherwise. You are urged to carefully review and consider any cautionary statements and other disclosures, including the statements made under the heading 'Risk Factors' in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') on May 15, 2024, and the Company's other periodic and quarterly filings with the SEC.
