(Image: Iain Masterton)
NHS Fife’s own lawyer raised doubts about its explosive statement on the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal, and believed he had not seen the final version before it was published, internal emails show.
The correspondence, released to The Herald under freedom of information, also shows that Carol Potter, then NHS Fife’s chief executive, was heavily involved in the writing of the statement, weighing in on individual sentences hours before it was published.
The 1,700-word statement was issued on 18 July last year, while Ms Peggie’s employment tribunal was under way in Dundee. It sought to address what the board described as “misinformation” surrounding the case, but was itself repeatedly amended.
Within minutes after it went online it was criticised by the Scottish Information Commissioner. Last year, The Herald revealed that the fallout from the statement led to John Swinney personally requesting a briefing from NHS Fife.
Read more
- Revealed: Swinney demanded briefing from NHS Fife over Sandie Peggie press statement
- NHS Fife hires external PR advisers ahead of Sandie Peggie tribunal ruling
- Sandie Peggie latest: NHS Fife chief executive to take early retirement
The initial statement appeared to link threats of violence against NHS staff to Sex Matters, the gender-critical campaign group supporting Ms Peggie.
The documents released are heavily redacted, and the board has withheld further material as “free and frank” advice.
The emails were only handed over after the Scottish Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, ruled that NHS Fife had wrongly withheld the records and had not even searched for them.
Ms Peggie is a nurse at the A&E at Victoria Hospital (Image: Helen McArdle)
The draft reached Ms Potter on 15 July, three days before it was published. The same day she told colleagues: “Sorry, I don’t think it’s clear enough on the distinction between the tribunal and the internal investigation.”
On the morning of 17 July she sent her own additions. “Please have a look at my additional wording and see what you think? I wanted to bring in some further comments about the impact on our staff and unacceptable behaviours directed at them.” The text that followed is redacted.
Hours later, she asked a colleague: “Kirsty had made a suggestion about toning back some of the emotion from my additions – have you got that?” The communications team then sent her draft 9, saying: “Draft 9 attached to encompass your changes and those suggested by Adam.”
On publication day, she wrote: “Thanks both, the only sentence I’m debating is the following one. Kirsty, I know you’ve been wanting to speak to me so – happy to chat this one through – I’m on the fence.” The sentence is redacted.
An hour later, Kirsty MacGregor, the director of communications, emailed: “Good to go – just speaking with Carol.”
That evening, after Ms Peggie’s lawyer called for paragraph three to be removed, Ms Potter said she would wait for advice from the lawyers on the final sentence: “I am not sure on the official position of the court proceedings – it is my understanding the judge will still wish to consider it?”
One of the most striking exchanges is from 20 July, two days after the statement was issued. Adam Watson, a senior solicitor with NHS National Services Scotland’s Central Legal Office, wrote to the board’s communications team: “I did express doubts about the opening section previously, but my understanding is that there was a desire for it to be a bit more punchy.”
He said he believed he had only seen “an earlier draft” of the final statement, though he was “not sure it changed too much”. He added that the Friday evening changes had at least, “hopefully”, avoided derailing the tribunal, “which has to be a priority”.
Mr Watson had earlier declined to sign off a draft labelled “final”. On 16 July, he told the communications team there were still “a number of issues” with it and that it was better to issue it later than rush. “I do feel – as this will get a lot of scrutiny – it’s important to take the time to get it right,” he wrote.
The communications team was under pressure to publish. Before the statement went out, Ms MacGregor told Ms Potter the aim was to issue by 3pm “at the latest”.
David Miller, NHS Fife’s Director of People and Culture, who was asked to check the draft for inaccuracies, said he was “slightly uncomfortable” about mentioning the disciplinary process in a media statement. He added that it was “factually correct”.
The emails show how the statement evolved from a defensive explainer into something more combative. In an early draft cover note on 2 July, a communications officer said two points were worth keeping in because they were “newsworthy” and had not “been discussed publicly as of yet”. One was the threats made against staff. The other was the claimant’s refusal to enter mediation.
By 14 July, with the section on freedom of information under discussion, the communications officer said she had tried to correct “some of the misconceptions” but that “that boat may have sailed”.
The statement said the threat had “required the involvement of Police Scotland”.
An email sent to Police Scotland’s press desk at 1.54pm that day gave advance notice that its officers might be asked to verify this. It said the staff member involved had been in touch with an officer, and that: “I understand [redacted] wasn’t given a crime reference number.”
When The Herald asked the police for a comment at the time, a spokesperson said: "We have received information and it is being assessed.”
Later that afternoon, Ms MacGregor drafted a line for journalists asking about the police response. It said that “no formal crime was recorded”, but that Police Scotland “reviewed the material shared and took precautionary steps, including placing an alert on the individual’s home address as a safeguarding measure”.
Carol Potter has since left the health board (Image: NHS Fife)
That evening, Mr Watson relayed a phone call with Ms Peggie’s lawyer. She said NHS Fife’s clarification that it was not suggesting anyone involved with Sex Matters had contributed to the threats was “still inadequate”. She wanted the whole of paragraph three removed.
Her arguments, as relayed by Mr Watson, included that the paragraph amounted to witness intimidation. She also said she doubted it met the threshold for contempt of court, but that this was being looked at. In his email, Mr Watson also said the paragraph was relevant to any bid to recover legal costs for unreasonable conduct.
Read more
- NHS Fife admits outgoing chief signed off on controversial Sandie Peggie statement
- NHS Fife 'improvement plan' after Sandie Peggie case restricted by ministers
- 'Intense scrutiny': NHS Fife chief admits Sandie Peggie case did influence retirement
Jane Russell KC, NHS Fife’s senior counsel, said she would reflect over the weekend. NHS Fife had already removed the Sex Matters section from its website by then. On 20 July, Mr Watson asked for a leftover line to be taken down. It was still on the page the next morning.
Staff discussed the website crash in a Teams chat on 18 July. One colleague said there had been a spike in traffic at 3.45pm and that “super bot fight mode” had been activated. Others wondered if the site had been attacked or if there had just been “lots of people jumped on at same time”. The public line said only that the board was working out whether the surge was “the result of unusually high public interest”.
NHS Fife has been approached for comment.