Official Report · Committee
Whistleblowing in the NHS (PE1605)
We move on to consideration of petition PE1605, in the name of Peter Gregson on behalf of Kids not Suits, on whistleblowing in the NHS. Again, the public papers spell out the previous work that the committee has conducted and, in particular, its work on the Government’s proposed changes in that area.
Do members wish to make any comments on the petition?
link
There are still key issues on the matters raised in the petition. The Government has acted and has introduced plans. However, the consultation on what the future will look like for people who are put in a position where they want to whistleblow has not included such people. That is where the petitioner has been trying to get more progress. I would like more consultation to take place on some of the questions that continue to be asked about the future role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, how it will investigate and hear the concerns of whistleblowers and what the reporting mechanism will be. That would help to progress the principles that the petitioner has raised.
I support Miles Briggs’s comments. Members will know that I have had a particular interest in whistleblowing following the allegations of bullying in NHS Highland, which, as you know, convener, we put directly to the board some months ago. I support the introduction of the independent national whistleblowing officer, which is to be set up at the SPSO, but the issue that Peter Gregson has raised is about how the SPSO will investigate whistleblowing concerns and hear them directly. I know that there is a good mechanism—we have already looked at that—but I am a little concerned about the gap between people having whistleblowing allegations to make and how the SPSO will actually hear about them. I would like more clarity on the system.
I support what my colleagues have said. I have a specific interest in bullying in the Scottish Ambulance Service, which is a matter that people have raised at quite a few of my surgeries. It seems that people are not willing to whistleblow any more, because of the repercussions. I am interested in how the process will work to give potential whistleblowers the confidence to come forward, and in how the Government plans to monitor the impact of the new ideas about whistleblowing that are emerging. If the outcome is the same as the current situation, in which the people who attend my surgeries are not whistleblowing because of the possible repercussions, the system will not work.
I am keen to continue to follow up how the whistleblowing process, the leadership around it and the local whistleblowing champions will deal with issues that are raised. The petitioner had particular questions about clinical front-facing access and how we might support people who choose to whistleblow. The cabinet secretary is keen to ensure that, as we move forward with processes of engagement with leadership, ultimately, we should not need whistleblowers at all because people should feel comfortable about sharing information. However, I recognise the issues that members have raised with the Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS Highland as well as other local issues that have been brought to my attention. I am keen to know how the whole process will be monitored and supported.
That is helpful.
Members will recall that the committee considered many of those questions in May, when we issued a call for views, following which we received written evidence and held an oral evidence session on how the independent national whistleblowing officer would work in the context of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the structure of that role.
To go back to the aspiration of the cabinet secretary, which Emma Harper mentioned, I was reminded of the fact that, when the national health service was first founded, our predecessors thought that, once it had done its job for a generation, it would not be needed any more. I suspect that whistleblowing will always be essential, no matter how well run our public services are. I guess that our job is to ensure that we are confident that people who have whistleblowing concerns can raise them.
The last order that the Government has brought forward to implement its new system of whistleblowing has now been laid, and we have a fortnight in which we can consult on that. That will allow some of the questions that members have highlighted to be asked. I suggest that, at the end of that process, when we come to consider the order and decide whether to approve it, we could take that opportunity to invite the independent national whistleblowing officer to come to the committee and answer those questions directly. That might ensure that there is transparency in the process and give us confidence that those questions have indeed been answered.
My suggestion is that, if, at that point, we are satisfied with what we have heard and agree that the order should be approved, we could then agree to close the petition, because the issues that it specifically raised will have been addressed. That will close that chapter, although, as I said, I fear that the book will never be closed, because issues around whistleblowing will always arise.
Do members agree with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.