There’s been a bit of a stooshie this week about SNP MP Philippa Whitford earning a small fortune working as a locum consultant for the NHS. From the Irvine Times (so I don’t have to link to the Daily Fail):
It’s been revealed that Philippa Whitford MP worked seven times for the cash-strapped hospital over the Christmas period.
The SNP’s Westminister health spokesperson earned £57.60 an hour on August 20-21, the equivalent of £490 a day, as well as working on September 25 during conference season.
But Dr Whitford says it is “absolutely ludicrous” to make an issue of her work saying it had no effect on her parliamentary duties.
This, for me, is an example of bashing political opponents for the sake of it. If MPs want to do other work outside Parliament, that’s up to them and their constituents. In some cases, it’s particularly important that they do, if they have professional skills to maintain. If they are working in public services, they will also have an insight into what is going on in these services and the pressures that people are under.
We know that MPs work ridiculous hours. Over Christmas, it would be entirely understandable if they had put their feet up and eaten chocolate. That somebody was willing to get out there and work in the NHS is to be commended rather than condemned.
There have been plenty reasons to criticise SNP MPs, some of whom have had a few wee problems understanding the requirements of the Register of Members’ interests , or, like Michelle Thomson, have much more serious allegations to deal with. And some, like Natalie McGarry, don’t seem to know when to put their spades away. Not only is she suspended from the SNP over concerns about the finances of Women for Independence, but she then picks a massive fight with J K Rowling which might end up with her getting sued. However, this is not an equivalent situation and it’s not one that opposition politicians should be exploiting for the sake of it.
We know hat SNP MPs are signed up to a draconian code of conduct meaning that they are not allowed to criticise their group or party, but you can only hope that Dr Whitford is feeding back to her SNP colleagues privately that the NHS is in an utter mess in Scotland.
So long as there is transparency in the system, I instinctively don’t like the idea of a ban on MPs working outside Parliament. Others might feel that it’s too much of a distraction from a role that is already more than a full-time job. What do you think?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mary Reid
Meg Thomas
Institute of Urban T
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
15 Comments
All part of the vicious unthinking scorn for politicians in general. Anyway when does standing in as a locum for a few days over Christmas count as a “second job”? If they want to go for politicians over genuine first and second jobs they could look in plenty of other places.
Pathetic really and a good indication of the current condition of the politics and the media. I do think this country is getting to be a nastier and nastier place.
Tony Greaves
Generally I dislike the idea of MPs doing other jobs as I do think they should devote themselves pretty much full time to being an MP, but each case has to be looked at on its own merits, and where the work is only being done occasionally, and/or there are good reasons for doing it as in Dr Whitford’s case, it’s completely ludicrous that anybody would criticise her for it or try to make political capital. There are other MPs where such criticism would be entirely justified – for instance I have heard of barrister MPs working on complex trials that have lasted for many months. That seems unjustifiable to me, but I agree with you that there should be no ban, just transparency so voters can make their own minds up.
I’m astonished that the Irvine Times journalist, and the Labour spokeswoman quoted, find it shocking that an NHS hospital should be paying a senior consultant as much as £490 per day. I work in education and we often pay for IT consultants to come in and spend 6 or 7 hours sitting at a desk installing or configuring some software, or if we really want to flog them hard we might ask them to deliver a bit of training. The going rate for this is invariably £500 + VAT. Anyone who thinks £490 for a day’s work from a highly experienced breast surgeon isn’t value for money really ought to look at some of the crazy wages paid to far less skilled and important people in other parts of both the public and private sector.
Well sad Caron and co ! What is evident is how little Scottish consultants are earning compared to down south ! To most of us a small fortune , yes , although such things are relative , and if there is no conflict of interest , there is no problem unless the work interferes , time or commitment etc . Actually the very work above is sometimes necessary to maintain professional expertise , not true in all fields , definitely in medicine though.I dislike the politics of envy as a poor substitute for a sense of injustice .
Caron , I meant to say Well said Caron, not Well sad Caron !!! Apologies !
£57.50 is a pretty cheap rate for a consultant locum. Over Christmas it’s a very cheap rate. Considering how understaffed hospitals are over Christmas due to agency staff taking time off and people not wanting to take on locums, she should definitely be given credit for this rather than criticised.
I agree Caron. As long as it doesn’t interfere with parliamentary work there’s no reason why MPs shouldn’t have second jobs, especially during recess. Ultimately it’s for constituents to decide how much extra work is acceptable.
Philippa Whitford is one of the outstanding SNP MP’s . I wish she was one of ours. She supported Norman Lamb in the debate last week and clearly knows what she’s talking about.
What better way to keep up to date with pressures in the NHS – and to do one’s bit for humanity – than doing a few days providing cover as a Cancer surgeon over Christmas – performing mastectomies and lumpectomies. If one of my relatives was so affected I would be delighted for them to get her expertise. She also gets full marks from me for volunteering in the Gaza strip.
Agree with Tony.
I am not quite so awestruck by Philippa Whitford, David, although I commend her for the particular humanitarian and public service things you mention. She did a horribly inaccurate talk on the NHS which went viral during the independence referendum and was found to be a whole load of nonsense.
Also worth noting that Whitford stepped in to cover for a sick colleague. Not sure that attacking the AMP’s record on the NHS Is a shrewd move; Kezia Dugdale tried that at FMQs an looked what happened to her!.”
It seems a pity that a piece allegedly on MPs and second jobs should turn into an attack on SNP MPs. Interesting that Caron does not refer to the Brian Spanner tweets and Rowling’s alleged support of the tweeter which led to the McCarty/Rowling spat but perhaps Caron feels that the Spanner tweets are just good funny irony?
Actually, I think the Brian Spanner account is repulsive. I don’t follow it and I don’t find it in any way edifying.
But suggesting that JK would support such vile tweets is a) wrong and b) unwise for Natalie to do.
The point I was making is that there is much to criticise the SNP for but having a go at Philippa Whitford for her medical work is not something we should be doing.
Perhaps the words “Daily Fail” says everything that is wrong with the Liberal Democrats. You do not have to agree with its politics to see that it is technically a very well produced newspaper which is atractive to readers, full of interesting features and read by people of all persuasions.
nvelope2003 ,readers of the Morning Star might say all sorts to explain to some of us , incredulous as to the papers survival, why they buy it , but, if as a bit of satire I called it the Yawning Tzar , you surely could not object ?!
@Lorenzo
I agree, ‘Yawning Tzar’ and ‘Daily Fail’, are both soft humour, and in my view acceptable in a grown-up debate between people that can handle it.
I often wonder though, how often comments have been through a moderators fingers referring to LDV in a less than complimentary way, as (say), Lib Dem Vacuous, and duly fallen on the moderators cutting room floor?
That said, I’m confident that moderators here, wouldn’t have such double standards.
@indigo – As if I would …
Indigo: When I was young it was called the Daily Wail although then it was quite cheerful and did not have that miserabilist attitude which is now its main characteristic. I realise Daily Fail was meant to be a joke but jokes must have an element of truth to be funny and “Fail” is the opposite of the truth and indicates the sort of de haut en bas attitude of the fans of the BBC school of humour provided by silly public school types at about 6.30 pm on Radio 4. Such an attitude explains everything about the failure of the Liberal Democrat party to engage with and attract wide popular support. Sorry.
Lorenzo: Well you obviously find the Morning Star boring but I used to read it when it was called the Daily Worker and occasionally read it now and whatever I think of its views boring would not be the word I would use but maybe the current heir of the Romanovs would not agree. Yawn yawn.