Health Committee Chair and Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston.
Show Hide image

Sarah Wollaston: “People are very abusive to MPs… undermining, throwing insults at you”

The newly elected chair of the Health Committee and Conservative MP for Totnes talks to the New Statesman.

Sarah Wollaston is “delighted” at having attained the health committee chairmanship: “It’s the job in politics I always wanted”.

Although the Tory whips tried to install Conservative MP Dr Philip Lee, the Labour vote swept Wollaston, a former GP herself, into the top job. The opposition was impressed, no doubt, by her independent mindedness and healthcare expertise, but likely by her ability to rile her party too.

Elected as MP for Totnes in 2010, her bluntness has raised eyebrows in the party. She has criticised the government for failing to address pressing health issues, such as the miminum pricing of alcohol, and last year piqued the Prime Minister by describing his inner circle as "too white, male, and privileged".

She also became mired in controversy over her involvement in the rape prosecution brought against fellow Tory MP Nigel Evans. She was heavily vilified in Westminster for helping two young parliamentary staffers bring sexual assault and rape complaints last year against Evans, who was acquitted after a protracted legal case. Her new role looks set to draw a line under that difficult period.

She admits that being a politician in the public eye takes its toll on her, however. "People are very abusive to MPs, and I know it's not just women MPs, but you do take a lot of personal flak."

She elaborates: "You get individuals who will target you, frankly very unpleasant correspondence, so you need to have very thick skin."

What sort of thing do people write, or, more often, email? She hesitates. Wollaston naturally speaks softly, but becomes almost inaudible: "I would say people write to you where it's patronising, where it's directly offensive about you, that's aiming to undermine you. It's difficult sometimes to put into words".

She pauses. The toxic combination is being "deeply sarcastic, undermining, [and] throwing insults at you."

"Obviously you expect people to write and criticise policies, take issue with what you say." But the often sexist abuse she receives clearly wrong-foots her.

Wistfully, she says: "When you're a doctor, everyone's inclined to like you until proven otherwise. But when you come into politics, you realise that there is a great deal of hostility to politicians; that's quite challenging."

···

Now Wollaston's attention is focused on the parliamentary Health Committee and she is determined for its recommendations to be taken seriously and implemented properly. Greater emphasis on the follow up to investigations is needed, she says. "We put so much money into producing reports - if you look at the cost of the Shipman inquiry - and yet sometimes we see those recommendations fall by the wayside."

Talking in her Westminster office - the tidiest and most orderly of any MP's I have seen - she also expresses her consternation at Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's plan to “red flag” (literally put a red flag on the website by the name of) GPs who are missing too many cancer cases.

While she concedes that he is "absolutely right to focus on GPs' pick-up rates for cancer", she vehemently opposes the idea of publishing GPs' names openly "on a website in a sort of 'name and shame' format".

There would, she says ominously, be "unintended consequences". Waiting times would rocket if every doctor felt compelled to offer their patients every going medical test, she points out, adding that x-rays and other invasive investigations of the body carry a risk for patients. "You can be a bad doctor because you over refer as much as you can be a bad doctor if you under refer." The government should "intervene with those doctors directly and clearly" instead of shaming them publicly.

Wollaston is also critical of the government's handling of "care.data", a new initiative to link all NHS data about all patients together into one online database, for research use by public and private enterprises.

In particular, she finds it "extraordinary" that data was being sold to insurance companies in a way that turns out to have been within the law: "It strikes me as pretty obvious that that was not what was intended."

Although she is supportive of the concept - "Tying in primary care records with secondary care records - the value of that to research can't be underestimated" - she is unsettled about the risks to patient confidentiality.

She says: "I am very concerned that in the first outing of this - there seemed to be an attitude that it'd been an exercise in bad PR rather than addressing the fact that there were real issues of concern here for patients."

···

The funding issues facing the NHS provoke characteristically strong opinions in Wollaston. "The point about the NHS, the thing that people really value, is that principle of being free at the point of need, based on that need and not the ability to pay," she says.

"That to me is the core of the NHS, that it's a collective insurance model. We pool the risk."

This autumn, when her committee embarks on its annual expenditure inquiry of the NHS, she hopes to broaden the scope of the report to include exploration of different funding models to balance the books of the health service. According to a recent warning by health chiefs, it is facing a £2bn funding gap for the next financial year.

We need "an honest debate with the public", Wollaston concedes, and explains her plan for the committee to investigate in detail all the funding options, which political parties could then choose between in their manifestos.

While she asserts that she will not "prejudge" which model would be best, she is wary of the government extending the "top up" model used, for example, in British dentistry, whereby patients pay extra for certain services.

"To roll that out more widely into the health service I think would be a very major shift away from the fundamental principle. So I think we tread there with caution."

She is also outspoken in her demands for reform in Parliament. While there are "some careers that are very well represented in Parliament, such as law", more MPs from a science background are needed, she believes.

She is passionate about attracting more women into Westminster too. Job sharing is "a way we could attract more women", she believes, particularly those in their thirties or with young children. "At the moment most women like me come in in their forties. I came in at 48 - quite late to be starting", she points out.

Speaking before this week’s reshuffle, the subject turns to ministerial positions, which Wollaston thinks MPs should be able to apply for. After all, "you don't know if someone's the best person for the job if you haven't invited applications."

"Of course it's for the PM to pick his ministerial team, but it interests me that people can't apply for the job." Laughing, she adds: "That might seem an outrageous proposal from someone within politics, but actually, why not?"

Shaking her head, she adds: "It's just a mindset we have in politics that the right way to do things is to tap people on the shoulder."

Lucy Fisher writes about politics and is the winner of the Anthony Howard Award 2013. She tweets @LOS_Fisher.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

Why is it called Storm Doris? The psychological impact of naming a storm

“Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person.”

“Oh, piss off Doris,” cried the nation in unison this morning. No, it wasn't that everyone's local cantankerous old lady had thwacked our ankles with her stick. This is a different, more aggressive Doris. Less Werther’s, more extreme weathers. Less bridge club, more bridge collapse.

This is Storm Doris.

A storm that has brought snow, rain, and furious winds up to 94mph to parts of the UK. There are severe weather warnings of wind, snow and ice across the entire country.

But the real question here is: why is it called that? And what impact does the new Met Office policy of naming storms have on us?

Why do we name storms?

Storm Doris is the latest protagonist in the Met Office’s decision to name storms, a pilot scheme introduced in winter 2015/16 now in its second year.

The scheme was introduced to draw attention to severe weather conditions in Britain, and raise awareness of how to prepare for them.

How do we name storms?

The Name our Storms initiative invites the public to suggest names for storms. You can do this by tweeting the @metoffice using the #nameourstorms hashtag and your suggestion, through its Facebook page, or by emailing them.

These names are collated along with suggestions from Met Éireann and compiled into a list. These are whittled down into 21 names, according to which were most suggested – in alphabetical order and alternating between male and female names. This is done according to the US National Hurricane Naming convention, which excludes the letters Q, U, X, Y and Z because there are thought to be too few common names beginning with these letters.

They have to be human names, which is why suggestions in this list revealed by Wired – including Apocalypse, Gnasher, Megatron, In A Teacup (or Ena Tee Cup) – were rejected. The Met Office received 10,000 submissions for the 2016/17 season. According to a spokesperson, a lot of people submit their own names.

Only storms that could have a “medium” or “high” wind impact in the UK and Ireland are named. If there are more than 21 storms in a year, then the naming system starts from Alpha and goes through the Greek alphabet.

The names for this year are: Angus (19-20 Nov ’16), Barbara (23-24 Dec 2016), Conor (25-26 Dec 2016), Doris (now), Ewan, Fleur, Gabriel, Holly, Ivor, Jacqui, Kamil, Louise, Malcolm, Natalie, Oisín, Penelope, Robert, Susan, Thomas, Valerie and Wilbert.

Why does this violent storm have the name of an elderly lady?

Doris is an incongruous name for this storm, so why was it chosen? A Met Office spokesperson says they were just at that stage in their list of names, and there’s no link between the nature of the storm and its name.

But do people send cosy names for violent weather conditions on purpose? “There’s all sorts in there,” a spokesperson tells me. “People don’t try and use cosy names as such.”

What psychological impact does naming storms have on us?

We know that giving names to objects and animals immediately gives us a human connection with them. That’s why we name things we feel close to: a pet owner names their cat, a sailor names their boat, a bore names their car. We even name our virtual assistants –from Microsoft’s Clippy to Amazon’s Alexa.

This gives us a connection beyond practicality with the thing we’ve named.

Remember the response of Walter Palmer, the guy who killed Cecil the Lion? “If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study, obviously I wouldn’t have taken it,” he said. “Nobody in our hunting party knew before or after the name of this lion.”

So how does giving a storm a name change our attitude towards it?

Evidence suggests that we take it more seriously – or at least pay closer attention. A YouGov survey following the first seven named storms in the Met Office’s scheme shows that 55 per cent of the people polled took measures to prepare for wild weather after hearing that the oncoming storm had been named.

“There was an immediate acceptance of the storm names through all media,” said Gerald Fleming, Head of Forecasting at Met Éireann, the Irish metereological service. “The severe weather messages were more clearly communicated.”

But personalising a storm can backfire. A controversial US study in 2014 by PNAC (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) claimed that hurricanes with female names lead to higher death tolls – the more “feminine” the name, like Belle or Cindy, the higher the death toll. This is not because female names are attached to more severe storms; it is reportedly because people take fewer steps to prepare for storms with names they perceive to be unintimidating or weak.

“In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave,” Sharon Shavitt, a co-author of the study, told the FT at the time. “This makes a female-named hurricane . . . seem gentler and less violent.”

Names have social connotations, and affect our subconscious. Naming a storm can raise awareness of it, but it can also affect our behaviour towards it.

What’s it like sharing a name with a deadly storm?

We should also spare a thought for the impact sharing a name with a notorious weather event can have on a person. Katrina Nicholson, a nurse who lives in Glasgow, says it was “horrible” when the 2005 hurricane – one of the fifth deadliest ever in the US – was given her name.

“It was horrible having something so destructive associated with my name. Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person,” she tells me over email. “I actually remember at the time meeting an American tourist on a boat trip in Skye and when he heard my name he immediately linked it to the storm – although he quickly felt guilty and then said it was a lovely name! I think to this day there will be many Americans who hate my name because of it.”

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.