UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Philippa Whitford

  • Philippa Whitford – 2021 Speech on the UK Space Industry

    Philippa Whitford – 2021 Speech on the UK Space Industry

    The speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    The value of the UK space industry has more than trebled since 2010 and impacts on our daily lives, including the TV we watch, GPS navigation in our cars, and the covid apps on our mobile phones. While these services are delivered by large equatorial satellites, the UK would be likely to specialise in launching small, low-orbit satellites that are used for Earth observation, such as weather patterns, signs of climate damage or tracking shipping.

    Scotland is a major player, with almost a fifth of UK space sector employees. Glasgow is the leading producer of micro-satellites, while Strathclyde, Glasgow and Edinburgh universities have innovative research departments. Scottish companies, such as Skyrora and Orbex, are already developing commercial launch vehicles and both have produced low-carbon fuels to minimise their climate impact. Scotland also hosts five of the seven potential spaceports, including Prestwick airport in my constituency. Prestwick already has many advantages as a horizontal launch spaceport, with a 3 km runway, clear weather, good transport links and Scotland’s largest aerospace campus.

    The UK space industry is currently held back by the lack of a domestic launch site, but the licensing and regulation system of the Space Industry Act 2018 is still not finalised. The industry is concerned about the technology safeguarding agreement with the US, which could exclude foreign-launched customers from UK spaceports. It would be a failure if they just ended up as long strips of tarmac awaiting the occasional visit of a US vehicle.

    The biggest unresolved issue is that companies must accept unlimited liability to indemnify the Government against third-party damage. This is disproportionate, as small satellites would largely burn up on re-entry. Without a cap on liability, though, it is impossible to get insurance, and this is already driving some micro-satellite companies out of the UK. There is also concern at the lack of consultation on moving regulation from the UK Space Agency to the Civil Aviation Authority, especially as the latter has its hands full with taking on aviation safety after Brexit.

    It is critical that spaceports stimulate the whole sector, with a boost to research, innovation and manufacturing, and that they inspire more young people to go into the sector. The most important requirement is an overall space strategy so that the opportunities of this global industry are not missed.

  • Philippa Whitford – 2021 Comments on Victoria Prentis Not Reading Fisheries Deal

    Philippa Whitford – 2021 Comments on Victoria Prentis Not Reading Fisheries Deal

    The comments made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP spokesperson on Brexit, on 13 January 2021.

    Due to Brexit-induced bureaucracy, Scotland’s fishing communities are already experiencing severe disruption and cannot get their produce to their customers in the EU market on time. For the Tory Government’s fisheries minister to then admit that she did not even bother to read the details of the damaging deal because she was too busy is unbelievable and makes her position untenable.

  • Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill

    Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill

    The speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    Before I start my speech, I too wish to send my and my party’s condolences to the family of the police officer who lost his life in the line of duty last night.

    Bristol Royal Infirmary, Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Liverpool and Gosport: as in previous debates, I recite this shocking litany of tragedies, which have become household names, to remind us all of what is at stake. In each of those scandals, there were those who tried to raise concerns and protect patients, but they were ignored and often intimidated, victimised or even dismissed. Had they been listened to, lives could have been saved.

    Whistleblowing is an issue in many sectors, including financial services, as I am sure we will hear about later, but it is often the NHS and social care cases that stay in our memories, due to the terrible impact on patients and their families. The very term “whistleblower” denotes a boiling kettle—a sense of pressure and build-up, until a valve releases. In many cases, the poor working practices or patient safety issues have been going on for a long time before someone is finally driven to speak up. That is because the whistleblowing landscape before them is littered with broken careers and, indeed, broken people who tried to do the right thing.

    Most businesses and organisations want to create a good external impression—to project an air of success and to attract more business. As Sir Robert Francis highlighted in the Mid Staffs inquiry, that can be a significant pressure if public services are competing for contracts in a market-based system. The temptation is to cover things up—to look good from the outside, rather than admitting a problem and trying to fix it. That immediately places the employee in conflict with their employer, who just wants the problem to go away. To redress that power imbalance, it is necessary to protect and support whistleblowers, to encourage them to step forward and raise their concerns, whether on patient safety, financial wrongdoing or environmental damage.

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill to the House. Does she agree that one of the important factors behind this Bill is to protect employees who engage in whistleblowing, many of whom find themselves dismissed, albeit for other reasons?

    Dr Whitford

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is exactly the problem with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which falls within employment law, putting the burden on the employee to prove that they have been sacked purely for raising a concern, rather than on the employer. As I will come to later, such cases very quickly turn into, as we would say in Scotland, a complete rammy.

    In the five years that I have been in this House, I have heard politicians from all parties, including the previous Health Secretary, praising whistleblowers. However, despite several debates on the topic and about the need for action, nothing has been done to provide the protection ​they need from the point at which they make a disclosure. That is the critical thing: to protect them from damage, not to allow a system to pick it up afterwards. During the covid crisis, when we were out clapping the NHS and social care workers, we heard just as many stories of intimidation of those raising concerns about PPE or staffing.

    When the Public Interest Disclosure Act—or PIDA—was passed 22 years ago, it too was a private Member’s Bill. I wish to express my thanks to the Clerk of private Members’ Bills in the Public Bill Office for all his work, but I recognise that I have pulled this Bill together, so I have no problem with its being improved, changed or developed in order to make it function. This is not a party political issue; whistleblowing exists in every sector, in every nation. We should recognise the need to deal with it and try to fix it.

    At the time, PIDA was hailed as world leading, but that was 22 years ago. There are now better international examples, and it is in need of a complete makeover. What are the problems with PIDA? First, whistleblowers think that it offers protection from the point at which they come forward, but it does not. It merely allows them to challenge their employer in an employment tribunal after they have suffered detriment, such as missing out on promotion, being bullied or threatened or, as in a third of cases, even losing their job. As I said, the burden of proof is on the whistleblower to prove that raising a concern is the only reason that they have been sacked, rather than on the employer to prove the opposite. It is rather unsurprising, then, that only 3% of tribunal cases are successful—there is a 97% failure rate, and that is just the ones that actually go all the way to a tribunal.

    The litigation process also creates opportunities for further victimisation and intimidation, with breaches of confidentiality and threats of spiralling legal costs. Ordinary workers in most sectors simply cannot maintain the fight. The problem is that as PIDA sits within employment law, it just turns into a battle between employee and employer. The original cause for concern that made them speak up gets completely lost, rather than investigated and action taken to fix the problem. This is actually the whistleblowers’ biggest complaint. The people I met said it was not even about their detriment or protection for them, but about the fact that after everything they went through the issue was never investigated and certainly never dealt with.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing her Bill in the ballot. Does she agree—from what she is saying, she may well come on to this point—that at the heart of any effective whistleblowing system is a reliance on those investigating complaints internally being able to act independently and with neutrality to resolve the issue at an early stage, long before it gets anywhere near an external whistleblowing situation?

    Dr Whitford

    Absolutely; I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to some of those issues later. This issue, as has been said, is in part one of culture, of being open, of realising that it should be about learning and fixing rather than trying to shut someone up. The more that downward pressure is put ​on people—like a pressure cooker—the more that builds, and there is more and more unhappiness. The problem is that in something such as health and social care, it actually affects patients.

    That is why I am proposing the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill. The key thing that I seek to achieve is to remove whistleblowing from employment law and create free-standing protection legislation. If we really value whistleblowing, it should not be tucked away in some corner. It should be something that stands by itself—that sends the message that, in whatever sector, if someone sees wrongdoing and damage, they should come forward.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    I pledge my support on a cross-party basis, and I am delighted to associate my name with the Bill. The hon. Member talks about valuing whistleblowers. Does she agree that we should value them not only for the risk they take and the individual issues they raise, but for the wider cultural issues they raise within a system—particularly, as she says, in financial services—which allows this House to put the measures in place to clamp down on that adverse culture?

    Dr Whitford

    I welcome that intervention, but whistleblowing should not have to be a risk. It should be a normal part of someone’s work or their duty as a citizen to come forward and report something.

    The Bill defines whistleblowing disclosures, but it also widens the definition of “relevant authorities” to include not just employers, but public authorities and regulators, as many whistleblowers report that when they have involved regulators, they have been intimidated in exactly the same way and have made no progress. It places a duty on all relevant authorities not to subject whistleblowers to any form of detriment, and indeed, to protect them from detriment, but particularly—I cannot reiterate this more strongly—to investigate the concern and take action to prevent a recurrence.

    The Bill widens the list of professions in which a disclosure may be made to include those previously excluded, such as religious ministers and police officers. Let us consider the cases of child abuse that might have been prevented had priests and ministers been able to speak up, or how much earlier the families of the Hillsborough victims could have been told the truth and given closure.

    The Bill also includes those who were not previously defined as employees, such as trainees, interns and volunteers. I am sure that all of us who have taken an interest in this topic are well aware of the four-year persecution of Dr Chris Day, who warned about unsafe staffing in his intensive care unit, only to be told that junior doctors were not classed as NHS employees and that he had no protection. Although that anomaly has been resolved, it highlights the traps that unsuspecting whistleblowers can fall into.

    The Bill seeks to establish an independent body with statutory powers to oversee whistleblowing. I have called it a commission in the Bill, but I do not care what it is called. After his report into the deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, Sir Robert Francis established the “freedom to speak up system”, but the national guardian is not a statutory role and the local guardians are trust employees who themselves may be put under pressure when investigating a case. That comes back to ​the point raised in an intervention earlier: there needs to be absolute objectivity and a determination to deal with an issue locally, rather than it becoming a festering sore. By contrast, the Scottish Independent National Whistleblowing Office was established as a statutory body in 2018. It published its draft standards for the NHS and social care last year.

    Devolved Governments will develop whistleblower-support systems for their public services, but PIDA is the underpinning legislation for all sectors—including businesses and financial services—and it no longer serves its purpose. The commission’s duty would be to protect whistleblowers and promote the principle of whistleblowing in the public interest. Such a body would develop standards of practice for whistleblowing policies and procedures and monitor the compliance of organisations with those standards. Such standards would include how issues should be investigated, and organisations would be expected to show what action they had taken to address cases. The standards would stipulate prospective protection of the whistleblower from detriment, from the point of their making a disclosure, including by preserving their anonymity and confidentiality—many whistleblowers suddenly find themselves splattered across the local paper.

    The commission would also seek to resolve cases and reduce litigation, which is wasteful of public funds and both expensive and traumatic for the whistleblower. It could provide advice to whistleblowers who do not have any other route to report an issue or who are not making progress locally. It would be able to issue redress orders to try to repair detriment suffered by a whistleblower, rather than just making financial awards, and it would include the banning of non-disclosure agreements, which whistleblowers are often intimidated into signing. When staff have been subject to deliberate detriment, there would be the ability for civil action. As in Australia, criminal charges would be available for the most egregious cases of whistleblower persecution.

    There are different ways to improve the quality of a service, and whistleblowing should not be the main method of detecting poor practice, the squandering of public funds or fraud. Just as audit is critical to ensure probity in the financial sector, it is also essential to detect poor clinical practice. In Scotland, we have had regular reporting against quality improvement standards for the most common cancers for many years. In the case of my specialty, breast cancer, I was involved in leading the development of the standards almost 20 years ago. The process identifies outliers, who can then be supported to update their practice, but it also creates peer pressure to drive clinical improvement, as people know that their performance is going to be shared at a conference, openly and transparently, every single year.

    It is important to normalise incident reporting and encourage a culture of routinely raising issues without the sense of conflict and pressure associated with whistleblowing. That is the aim of systems such as Datix in the NHS, through which staff record, review and seek to learn from all incidents, from minor to major, including near misses. There will, however, always be cases that cannot be detected by audit, such as alcohol or drug misuse, bullying or racism. For that, whistleblowers are essential.

    For whistleblowers to speak up early and reduce harm, they must be valued, supported and protected. In the NHS, that is about patient safety, which is literally a matter of life and death.

  • Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

    I would first like to express my sympathy for all those who have lost a loved one to covid during this epidemic, and to pay tribute to the millions of healthcare staff, key workers and volunteers who have shown that community spirit is alive and well.

    Unfortunately, the foundation of this crisis has been 10 years in the making. A decade of Government austerity has taken its toll on health and social care services in England and, through cuts to devolved budgets, right across the UK. The pandemic is unprecedented in our lifetimes and poses a real challenge for every single Government on the planet, but it has been No. 1 on the risk register in the UK for more than 10 years.

    In early February, the Government claimed to be fully prepared, yet more than three months on, they are still failing to supply sufficient PPE to protect their healthcare staff. Moreover, testing and contact tracing are still not fully up and running, yet they are lifting the current restrictions. In 2016, Exercise Cygnus highlighted the lack of PPE and ventilators, yet there has been a 40% reduction in the value of the stockpile. The management of it was outsourced to a private company, and we hear that 45% of items in the stockpile are out of date, including 80% of respirator masks. Last June, the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group advised the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to add gowns to the stockpile. Why was that not done? Is that why Public Health England guidelines, which were issued to all four nations, did not include gowns for staff in covid-positive wards outwith intensive care?

    Two hundred healthcare staff have died. We need to pay tribute to them, but it should not have happened. None of them were from intensive care units, the most dangerous setting, which shows that full PPE actually works. But now we hear that even ICU doctors in England report struggling to get gowns. There is no point in joining the Thursday clap for carers if you are not willing to protect staff. The excuse for the lack of gowns is that the stockpile was only planned for an influenza pandemic. This is a civil contingency measure, so why would you plan for only one virus? It is not as if this is the first coronavirus outbreak. We had the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2002 and the middle east respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2014, and they were both much more lethal.

    The Prime Minister set five tests for easing lockdown. The Government clearly are not yet meeting No. 4. Scotland’s NHS has had central procurement and logistics for years and has its own stockpile, but the challenge for all Governments is achieving ongoing supply in the presence of high global demand. Yet the overseas offices of the Department for International Trade have apparently been advised not to assist the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Governments in PPE procurement. Provision of PPE is a devolved responsibility. Why would the UK Government want to undermine those Governments’ efforts to protect the patients and staff in devolved health services?

    The Secretary of State for Health prides himself on having ramped up testing to 100,000 on 30 April, but that was only by counting 40,000 tests that were, as we say, “in the post”. I wonder if they are counted again when they come back in. The level, sadly, has not been maintained. One issue being reported is delays in getting results back. It is also the case that the result is not always reported back to the GP or the hospital if it is a staff member. It is not just about how many tests. The World Health Organisation advises that testing, contact tracing and isolation is critical to breaking the chains of infection and controlling the epidemic. Unfortunately, in February, that just was not in place and we ended up with the lockdown as an emergency measure because we could not identify who we should isolate.

    Understanding easing the lockdown involves difficult decisions, but we need to be aware that the virus has not changed. We hear all the time about the mystical R number guiding the way out of lockdown, but it is an estimate of how many people are infected by each person with the virus. It has three components: the ease of transmission from one person to another; how long a person is infectious; and how many contacts they have during that time. Ease of transmission is a balance between the infectiousness of the virus and the susceptibility of the population. Covid-19 is very infectious and, as a new virus, the population had no immunity. We can reduce transmission through the personal hygiene measures—I would just emphasise that that should include not shaking hands—but 50% of the spread is asymptomatic and that is the reason to advise the use of face coverings to reduce droplet spread from people without symptoms.

    The way to decrease susceptibility is with a vaccine, but that will take time. In early March, the Government seemed to get side-tracked over the idea of herd immunity. I was chair of the all-party group on vaccinations for all and I totally understand the aim of herd immunity, but it is usually achieved with an effective and safe vaccine, not by letting a dangerous disease just rip through the population, especially when we have no proof of how long any covid immunity would last. The duration of infectiousness is about five to seven days and we cannot change that, but one of the problems is that covid patients seem to become infectious about two days before symptoms.

    Finally, there is the number of contacts. That is the key thing we can manipulate in one of two ways: either by isolating everyone in a lockdown, which is a blunderbuss approach because we could not identify who we should be isolating; or by isolating just cases and their contacts, so they have no contact with others. That requires strong public health teams to provide testing, tracing and isolation of every single case to control the spread. That should be put in place during lockdown, while people have relatively few contacts, and before lifting restrictions.

    The Prime Minister set out a roadmap last night for easing lockdown in England if five tests are met. No. 3 is a sustained fall in new cases, but the UK is still hovering over 4,000 new cases a day, and that is just the ones that are proven by a test. No. 4 is the secure provision of testing and PPE, and neither of those criteria has been met. Telling people to go out to work is not a baby step, especially without clear workplace and transport safety measures—we only have to look at photographs of London transport this morning to see that. If the Prime Minister had wanted more people to leave home, I gently suggest that a “Stay apart” message might have been a bit more helpful. Crucially, local public health teams must be in place to monitor the impact of any changes so that they can spot early warning signs of a local outbreak and take action, and that is not the case.

    None of the devolved nations is ready to come out of lockdown. In Scotland, the number of cases is falling, but we do not consider it low enough to be sure that there is no risk of a rise in infections. I know that the political decisions on the next steps are difficult, and I do not underestimate the mental, social and economic impact of lockdown or the misery it is causing. However, a second surge of covid cases would lead to many more deaths and put us right back to square one.

  • Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2020.

    I welcome the plan, although I have to say that I would have welcomed receiving the briefing yesterday that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, which I did not receive. The plan lays out a reasonable worst case scenario, and it is clear about the three time phases. Research is of course ongoing, but this will help to prepare the public for decisions that may have to be made down the line. At the moment, containment is based on self-isolation of cases, contacts and those who have travelled to risk areas, but with the spread elsewhere in the world, it is becoming harder to define risk areas. With regard to north Italy, the chief medical officer talked about those with underlying conditions perhaps interpreting the advice more stringently and not travelling, so will the Government either discuss with insurance companies or even consider legislation to make underlying conditions an acceptable reason to cancel a holiday, so that people can get their money back rather than putting themselves at risk?

    I agree with the Secretary of State regarding asymptomatic workers and sick pay, but there are staff who have no sick pay in their contract, and some protection has to be given to them. He referred to the seven-day period for self-certification, but isolation is for 14 days, and we do not want people turning up at their GP surgery halfway through that period. Can that be looked at? One issue that I have come across is an employer telling a member of staff returning from a holiday in Tenerife that they should not come to work for two weeks, but the employer does not wish to pay them for that period. We need to look at that, even if it is not health advice but an employer stipulation expecting people to have no income.

    As we move into delay, we see that children are not particularly vulnerable to catching this. However, as with other coronaviruses, they may well spread it. Do we have evidence for how much they contribute to transmission, as that will affect decisions on school closures?

    What preparations are being made for the long haul? Previous coronavirus outbreaks have lasted not just for a few months but for over a year, so we could be dealing with this next winter. If we move into mitigation, the situation will reverse and it will be about protecting the vulnerable and early discharge to home care. That might require the changing of staff from hospitals and care ​homes to work in the community, so are the Government in negotiations on such matters as legal responsibility and liability?

    The Secretary of State quite rightly talked about what the public should be doing, but should we not already be thinking about stopping shaking hands and about working from home, if possible, without an economic impact? That would also help the climate emergency. Containment moves into delay without a border, so should we not be thinking about trying to get ahead of the curve?

  • Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Wuhan Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 11 February 2020.

    I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and we support the use of powers to maintain isolation, as they are critical for the health and safety of other people in the country. I would, however, also support that they must be transparent and proportionate. I also welcome that the four chief medical officers across the UK are working together on this issue.

    The Government are advising symptomatic returnees from the high-risk countries, but should that not be all people returning from high-risk countries? We simply do not know what the prodromal part of the incubation period is, nor how infectious someone actually is before they have any symptoms at all. I have to say that I was surprised to see the bus drivers, who were driving those on their way to quarantine, sitting in the front seat in shirt sleeves besides someone in full hazmat gear. That seemed to me to send out a rather strange message.

    It is also advised that only those from Hubei province should self-isolate even if asymptomatic, but we see from the cases in France that this is spreading very quickly and we already have 40,000 cases across 28 countries. Therefore, if anyone is flying and going through airports, there is the risk of spread, of simply being on an aeroplane with someone coming from China.

    I welcome the funding for vaccine research and the expansion to 12 test centres across the four nations, but what publicity campaign is planned to educate the public upfront not to go to their GP and not to go to accident and emergency, where they will actually spread it to someone else? I understand that the information is there on the Scottish NHS inform system or 111, but if someone is not looking maybe we need to be proactive about the message.

    Finally, the UK is no longer part of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. While we are able to take part in the early warning and reporting system during transition, we are no longer part of the decision making or central procurement of vaccines. How much of that system is the UK still able to be part of at the moment during transition and in the long term? Does that perhaps raise up the agenda some of the areas of co-operation that need to be sought with European Union agencies?