Latest news with #SafetyandWelfare)Regulations1992
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
Can same legal team still represent NHS Fife and Dr Upton?
It hung over the stiflingly hot Room Four in Dundee's Tribunal Hearing Centre as NHS Fife's Equalities and Human Rights Lead Officer, Isla Bumba, was quizzed by lawyers and the employment judge. READ MORE For someone whose £60,000-a-year job is to lead on equality and human rights, the 20-something seemed a bit vague on equality and human rights legislation. Still, when asked in the summer of 2023 for some 'very generic and informal advice' on accommodating a trans person joining the ranks of NHS Fife—particularly around changing rooms—she said it 'could be deemed discriminatory to not allow a trans person access to facilities that aligned with their gender'. However, when pushed by Ms Peggie's KC, Naomi Cunningham, she admitted she hadn't considered the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which say changing facilities aren't suitable 'unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety'. Ms Bumba told the tribunal that, in light of everything, more attention could have been paid to certain things. Societally and legally we've evolved since July 2023, she added. During her evidence, NHS Fife's lawyer put forward lots of examples of trans policies in place at other health boards across the UK. The argument was, it seems, that everyone else was doing it, so we weren't to know any better. That may be true—but it was the changing room at the A&E in Kirkcaldy's Victoria Hospital where Dr Beth Upton and Sandie Peggie met on Christmas Eve. So it's very much NHS Fife's problem. And now it's also NHS Fife's problem that the complaints made about Ms Peggie by Dr Upton haven't stood up. Not only did the doctor report a 'hate incident' in the changing room, but once the investigation got underway, they made two more explosive allegations, raising 'clear fitness to practise questions'. One was that Ms Peggie 'walked out of a resuscitation unit when Dr Upton entered, leaving a patient unseen'. We know that an HR worker at the board internally questioned the 'validity of patient safety concerns due to lack of evidence', noting the allegations were based on 'perception' and that Ms Peggie hadn't even been asked about them. But NHS Fife pushed on with the investigation. Now that the health board has investigated and found nothing to back up the complaints, the question is whether they'll now face a disciplinary hearing of their own. In no walk of life do you get to make potentially career-ending allegations about a colleague—allegations that turn out to be baseless—and just move on. That's especially true in medicine. This could even see Dr Upton end up in front of the General Medical Council. What makes this all especially tricky for the health board is that these complaints—the trashing of Ms Peggie's reputation—formed a significant part of their case against her. The board doesn't just share a legal team with Dr Upton, they also share a legal argument, a legal narrative. They're inexorably linked. They can't settle unless Dr Upton agrees to settle. But given that would effectively mean the doctor admitting they fabricated the complaints, they've got a clear reputational reason to push on. The board, by contrast, has an interest in having some room to manoeuvre. It's in their interest to be able to throw Dr Upton under the bus if, as the tribunal resumes, it looks like they're heading for defeat. Lawyers owe a duty of single-minded loyalty to their client. They're prohibited from acting for two or more clients whose interests conflict—or even might conflict. So what does NHS Fife's legal team do now? Can they really continue this case without favouring one client over the other?
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
What we learned from Sandie Peggie employment tribunal
In her capacity, she advised that Dr Beth Upton had a 'right' to use the female changing rooms because the medic 'identifies as a woman'. Here is what we learned from day 11 of the tribunal. Sandie Peggie cleared The most significant revelation came hours before the tribunal had even began. Maragret Gribbon, the solicitor for Ms Peggie, revealed her client had been cleared all four allegations of gross misconduct against her. She was suspended in January 2024 following a row with Dr Upton over the trans medic's use of female only changing rooms. Further allegations emerged, including that the nurse 'walked out of a resuscitation unit when Dr Upton entered, leaving a patient unseen'. Another allegation, alleged to have occurred on December 18, 2023, claimed a patient was triaged and left the hospital without being seen. In a statement, NHS Fife concluded there had been 'insufficient evidence' to support any misconduct claims. Read more: The ramifications for this are significant and it is unlikely that this will be the end of this. First Minister John Swinney is also facing criticism after he said he had 'confidence' in the board of NHS Fife despite the misconduct allegations being cleared. NHS Fife's 'secret' trans policy NHS Fife did not have a trans inclusion policy at the time of the incident in 2023. We were told by Ms Bumba that the health board "soft launched" a policy for feedback in October 2024. We learned that the health board launched its policy in February. Prior to that, Ms Bumba told the tribunal that she relied on the guidance used by other health boards, particularly in Lanarkshire, Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Highland. Ms Bumba also said she would have been "Googling" to find out other policies from around the country. These policies generally said that trans individuals should be treated in accordance with their "self-declared gender". Workplace regulations were not consulted In a crucial piece of evidence, Ms Bumba said she did give consideration to the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. However, she admitted that in hindsight she probably would consider it because of the evolving nature of the issue. She is, of course, referring to the Supreme Court judgment, which ruled that the definition of a woman is linked to biological sex. Why is this important? The Workplace Regulations state that there must be separate facilities for men and women where necessary. Excluding Dr Upton could be 'discriminatory' Dr Bumba told the tribunal she issued the guidance because restricting Dr Upton's access to female changing facilities could "be deemed discriminatory". She said: Ms Bumba said: "I said it could be deemed discriminatory to not allow a trans person access to facilities that aligned with their gender. But I recommended that it might be worthwhile having a conversation with the person directly, if they'd been open about their trans status, to see where they would feel most comfortable." Ms Bumba said she was given very limited information relating to the incident between Ms Peggie and Dr Upton. While she was told it related to a "protected characteristic", Ms Bumba maintains she did not know who the people concerned were. Based on this information, she advised that it could be "discriminatory" towards Dr Upton as it concerned comments about the doctor's trans status. "It sounded like it was comments that were being made specifically about this person's trans status. 'It sounded quite unpleasant based on what was written," she said. But crucially, Ms Bumba also said she advised that Ms Peggie's gender critical views must be respected. The idea of Dr Upton being discriminated against became a key issue of contention when Ms Bumba was quizzed by Naomi Cunningham, a barrister representing Ms Upton. The barrister asked whether women like Ms Peggie would have been disadvantaged by the decisions taken. Ms Bumba said there was "no reason" for her to think that women might be concerned about being exposed to sexual harassment. Harm caused by trans people vs men Another significant issue of contention related to Ms Cunningham's question which asked whether a trans person using a single-sex space would "put women at significant risk". Ms Bumba argued that the prospect of harm from a trans woman was "significantly less" that the danger posed by men. She also said it could have been potentially isolating for Dr Upton to have been instructed to use a "private space" to change away from women. This was a solution offered to Ms Peggie - but importantly not by Ms Bumba. Bumba denies being biased towards trans community The tribunal heard that Ms Bumba signs off her work emails with the statement 'LGBT ally'. Lawyers acting on behalf of Ms Peggie questioned whether this meant the equality lead was "positioned on one side of the debate" and whether she believed gender reassignment and sexual orientation were the most important protected characteristics. Ms Bumba said her signature did not suggest these were her main priorities. "I'm an ally to trans people yes, but that doesn't mean I am not an ally to women," she said.
The National
3 days ago
- Health
- The National
Scottish Government agrees to meet with Sex Matters
The Government also said its trans and non-binary inclusion policy, which applies to staff, is under 'active review'. Campaign group Sex Matters has called on ministers to make a statement on its policy around access to toilets in Government properties. Sex Matters wrote to Nicola Richards, the Scottish Government's director of people, at the start of July to raise concerns about single-sex spaces. READ MORE: Russell Findlay under fire for £150k taxpayer cash given to ex-spin doctor's firms The letter followed the issue of a formal 'letter before action' in June warning of potential legal action, saying ministers are failing to implement the recent Supreme Court judgment on biological sex in equalities legislation. The campaign group was offered a meeting with Dr Richards, with the Government saying the policy on trans and non-binary equality had been put under 'active review' in light of the Supreme Court judgment. But the Government said the policy has not been amended. Dr Richards wrote that the Scottish Government does not agree with Sex Matters that it is 'appropriate or straightforward to take immediate steps' to bring its toilets policy into line with the Supreme Court's ruling on the meaning of 'man' and 'woman'. She cited the Good Law Project's legal challenge to the Health and Safety Executive's interpretation of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 as a reason for a lack of action on the policy. Dr Richards wrote: 'Given these complexities, the Scottish Government does not agree that it is appropriate or straightforward to take immediate steps to either withdraw or amend the current policy. 'It is my understanding that the approach of the Scottish Government in this regard, of reviewing policies and, where appropriate, seeking guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), is consistent with the position of the UK and Welsh Governments. 'Appropriate changes will be made to the policy referred to in your letter, and others impacted by the ruling, as soon as the Scottish Government has further clarity. This will follow any required and appropriate consultation and engagement.' Later this week, the employment tribunal involving nurse Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife will resume. Veteran nurse Peggie brought the case against the health board after her complaint about sharing a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton led to her being suspended. Peggie lodged a complaint of sexual harassment or harassment related to a protected belief under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. A 10-day hearing was adjourned in February, shortly before the Supreme Court judgment was returned. The tribunal hearings are due to recommence in Dundee on July 16. Maya Forstater (above, right), founder of Sex Matters, said: 'We have accepted the offer of a meeting in the hope of gaining clarity about how the Scottish Government is currently managing its workplace facilities, and when it intends to bring them into line with the law. 'Tomorrow would be a good answer. It is now three months since the Supreme Court ruling and, this week, the Sandie Peggie tribunal resumes. 'It is atrocious that public bodies are still dragging their feet and describing the question of whether female staff deserve privacy and dignity as complex. 'Parliament makes the law and the highest court in the land has now clarified its meaning.' She added: 'Whether or not we pursue legal action depends entirely on what the Scottish Government does next.' The Scottish Government has been contacted for further comment.
Scottish Sun
6 days ago
- Climate
- Scottish Sun
Too hot to work? Worker rights and when you should get sent home as heatwave to hit Scotland
It's all fun and games when you're off to enjoy the weather but what are your rights at work in this sizzling heat? BURNING ISSUE Too hot to work? Worker rights and when you should get sent home as heatwave to hit Scotland SCOTS are set to bask in scorching sunshine this weekend as temperatures soar above 30C. The mercury is predicted to rise to record-breaking levels as 150,000 revellers descend on Glasgow Green for the three-day TRNSMT festival. 3 The historic open-air swimming pool in the sun at Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Credit: Alamy 3 TRNSMT revellers last year enjoyed the beautiful sunny weather in Glasgow Credit: Tom Farmer However, many will be stuck in offices as they work through the unbelievable heatwave. Scotland has already had more sunshine this year than the whole of last summer. The Met Office say record books may need to be rewritten if temperatures continue to soar. Similar toasty temperatures are expected to be recorded across much of Scotland on Saturday. It's all fun and games when you're off to enjoy the weather but what are your rights at work in this sizzling heat? Here's everything we know... Can you go home from work if it gets too hot? The Scottish Trades Union Congress wants to make it illegal to keep people at work indoors if the temperature is above 30C, and put protection in place for people working outside or driving for a living. Unfortunately, there isn't a legally defined maximum or minimum temperature for offices yet. But your employer is responsible for "keeping the temperature at a comfortable level", and there are rules that could allow you to leave if the office is too hot. The TUC says: "When the workplace gets too hot it is more than just an issue about comfort. "If the temperature goes too high then it can become a health and safety issue. If people get too hot, they risk dizziness, fainting, or even heat cramps. "In very hot conditions, the body's blood temperature rises. If the blood temperature rises above 39C, there is a risk of heat stroke or collapse. Delirium or confusion can occur above 41C. "Blood temperatures at this level can prove fatal and even if a worker does recover, they may suffer irreparable organ damage." According to the HSE: "A meaningful maximum figure cannot be given due to the high temperatures found in, for example, glass works or foundries." 3 Woman sweating and suffering inside a warm office during the summer months Credit: Getty The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which lay down particular requirements for most aspects of the working environment, states that: 'During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable." The HSE explains: 'If a significant number of employees are complaining about thermal discomfort, your employer should carry out a risk assessment, and act on the results of that assessment.' If you're a vulnerable employee – for example, if you're pregnant or are undergoing the menopause, or if you need to wear protective equipment at work so can't take off layers - that also has to be taken into account. So the answer is simple – if you're uncomfortable, tell your boss and if enough people complain, then they have to act. Can you go home in the hot weather if you work outside? The health and safety temperature laws only apply to "indoor workplaces" - so what if you work outside, in the agricultural or construction industries? Again, no maximum temperature has been set - but employers are legally obligated to conduct risk assessments on workplaces to ensure that temperatures are 'reasonable'. In 2013, Army reservists Lance Corporal Roberts, Lance Corporal Maher and Corporal Dunsby all died as a result of heat exhaustion after a training session in the Brecon Beacons. The HSE launched an investigation of the Ministry of Defence, and found that there had been a failure to plan, assess and manage risks associated with climatic illness during the training. The exercise should have been called off hours before when temperatures reached record highs, they said. The HSE were unable to prosecute the MoD because it is a government body, but the case highlights the duty of care on the employer. Employers should ensure their workers have access to water and monitor the health of their employees in hot conditions, according to HSE guidelines. If you have concerns that it's too hot to do physical labour outside, do raise these with your employer. Can you keep your kids home from school if it is too hot? During a heatwave in 2013, school teachers called for maximum legal temperatures to be set in classrooms over fears that it was too hot for the kids. At the time, general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union Chris Keates said heatwave temperatures make pupils lethargic, affect concentration and can lead to fainting. The union called for a maximum classroom temperature of 30C - which would see kids sent home if thermometers rose above this level. However, the law remained the same - and, as with term-time holidays, you could get into trouble for keeping your kids off school in the heatwave. Parents should ensure their kids are well equipped for a heatwave by providing a hat and sunscreen if they are likely to be playing outdoors. Many schools relax uniform rules during the summer months.
The Herald Scotland
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Emma Roddick: Trans people are 'demonised' in Scotland
Her intervention followed an interim decision to ban transgender people using toilets and changing rooms in their acquired gender in Holyrood. Ms Roddick, who was Scottish Government's equalities minister from March 2023 to May 2024, was one of 16 MSPs to sign an open letter last month condemning the Scottish Parliament's decision. READ MORE: Emma Roddick on Fergus Ewing, Stephen Flynn and being sacked Ewing: 'Who, hand on heart, can defend the SNP's record?' Alex Neil: Fergus Ewing will 'easily beat' the SNP as an independent Holyrood had no choice but to follow law on trans toilet ban In May, Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone, who chairs the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, a cross-party group responsible for managing and running the building, announced that access to Holyrood's toilet facilities would be based on biological sex, not gender identity. The changes followed a Supreme Court ruling in April that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the watchdog the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) advised that, in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new Holyrood policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' in the buidling are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating several other toilets. In their letter in May, the MSPs claimed the move by Holyrood "misinterprets the judgment". The EHRC revised its interim guidance last week removing a statement that the Supreme Court ruling meant workplaces must provide single-sex toilets. The guidance now states: 'In relation to workplaces, requirements are set out in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. These require suitable and sufficient facilities to be provided including toilets and sometimes changing facilities and showers. 'Toilets, showers and changing facilities may be mixed-sex where they are in a separate room lockable from the inside. Where changing facilities are required under the regulations, and where it is necessary for reasons of propriety, there must be separate facilities for men and women or separate use of those facilities such as separate lockable rooms.' Asked if she thought trans people were being demonised in Scotland, she said: "They are. I have seen it. They absolutely are being demonised." She went on to defend signing the letter criticising the decision by the Holyrood authorities about which toilets a trans person could use in the building. "In terms of the Parliament I felt it was premature and developments this week have demonstrated that it was a premature decision," she said, noting that the revised EHRC interim guidance. Speaking from her office in part of the Holyrood building occupied by MSPs and their staff, she added: "My understanding is that the only trans person in this block who is affected is a man who now has to use the women's toilets. "The way it is discussed in quite a reductive way ignores the practicalities of what is happening here. I don't think there was any issue [with trans women using women's toilets or trans men using men's toilets before]. I can't recall any incidents. There are people who work in this building who get on their jobs and their lives." Trans gender people make up a tiny and vulnerable minority group in Scotland. According to Scotland's 2022 census, 19,990 people reported being trans or having a trans history, representing 0.44% of the population aged 16 and over. A survey by the Equality Network, which supports LGBTQ+ people, found that 80% of trans people who responded to its survey in 2017 had been a victim of a hate crime. A factsheet published by the EHRC in 2023 said Scottish Government analysis of hate crime data showed that the number of trans identity hate crimes recorded by the police more than tripled (from 53 to 185) between 2014/15 and 2021/22. A Scottish Parliament spokesman said: 'The Supreme Court ruling in April had immediate legal effect. Given this, the SPCB took steps following its publication to consider its implications for the services and facilities at Holyrood and agreed an interim stance. "As part of that interim stance the SPCB agreed an augmentation of our existing provision of gender-neutral facilities to provide a range of options for people to choose from. 'The SPCB has always been, and remains, committed to providing an inclusive environment for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. Its intention is to fulfil its various legal responsibilities in a timely manner and in a way that respects the diverse experiences and needs of all protected groups.' The SPCB has agreed to conduct a consultation to inform what further changes may be required to facilities in the medium to longer term. This consultation will also take account of the updated EHRC statutory code of practice when it becomes available later this year.
