Our campaign to protect whistleblowers has made another advance!
Next week on the 12th October the Public Office (Accountability) Bill will be debated in the House of Lords. This debate includes our proposals for comprehensive whistleblowing protection and the introduction of an Office of the Whistleblower. It is being supported across all parties and championed by Baroness Kramer who can be heard in this clip setting out what is involved and why it is important to the Public Interest.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill is a flagship of this government and is particularly close to the heart of the Prime Minister Andy Burnham who has repeatedly over many years stated his support for whistleblowers.
WhistleblowerUK are asking members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to support the whistleblowing amendments and support the creation of an independent Office of the Whistleblower.
These amendments promote justice and fairness by ensuring that when someone raises a serious concern about a public authority or public official:
- · THE CONCERN IS HEARD
- · THE CONCERN IS INVESTIGATED
- · THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS PROTECTED
- · ACTION IS TAKEN, and
- · PARLIAMENT CAN SEE WHETHER THE SYSTEM WORKED
WHY THESE AMENDMENTS MATTER
Across some of the UK’s most serious public scandals, concerns existed well before the full scale of the failure became apparent:
- Hillsborough
- Grenfell
- Maternity scandals
- Grooming gangs
The circumstances are different, but they raise a common question:
What happens when someone inside an organisation sees a serious problem and the organisation fails to hear, investigate or act upon the warning?
The answer cannot simply be another inquiry years later.
The Public Office Accountability Bill is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Parliamentarians to prevent disasters and scandals by supporting whistleblowing by strengthening the system that receives the warning in the first place.
HILLSBOROUGH – TRUTH MUST NOT DEPEND ON A FUTURE INQUIRY
Hillsborough demonstrated the devastating consequences that can follow when institutions fail in their responsibilities and when the truth becomes contested after a major public disaster.
The IOPC’s Hillsborough investigation examined, among other matters, the evidence submitted by South Yorkshire Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions, illustrating the scale and complexity of the material involved.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill’s duty of candour is an important part of addressing these failures.
Whistleblowing protection is the other side of the equation:
People must be able to provide information without fear of retaliation, and there must be an independent route when the organisation concerned cannot safely investigate itself.
GRENFELL — ACCOUNTABILITY MUST START BEFORE DISASTER
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 report examined the systemic failures surrounding the fire that claimed the lives of 72 people. Government continues to implement the Inquiry’s recommendations, with its September 2026 progress report recording 30 recommendations completed and 31 in progress.
The lesson is not simply that governments need better inquiries.
It is that information, challenge and accountability must operate effectively before a crisis becomes a catastrophe.
A credible and trusted whistleblowing system gives people a route to raise concerns when ordinary organisational processes fail.
MATERNITY – PATIENT SAFETY DEPENDS ON PROFESSIONAL SAFETY
The Ockenden Review found evidence of a culture in which staff could be fearful of speaking up.
Of staff responding to the review’s survey, 57% said they had raised professional or clinical concerns. The review also recorded evidence that some staff feared consequences for raising concerns, including accounts of concerns being discouraged or routed back towards people about whom concerns had been raised.
The review concluded that repeated concerns and incidents should have prompted earlier scrutiny, but issues within maternity services remained largely unseen, to the detriment of families.
The principle is simple: If professionals cannot safely speak about patient safety, patients cannot be fully protected.
GROOMING GANGS – INFORMATION MUST NOT FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS AND DISAPPEAR BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS
Baroness Casey’s National Audit identified repeated failures involving information sharing, fragmented responses and failure to act on warnings and recommendations.
It described a recurring cycle in which reports, reviews and recommendations identified system failures, followed by further failures to implement lessons.
The Government has subsequently accepted the importance of stronger information-sharing arrangements between safeguarding agencies.
The lesson for whistleblowing is equally important:
Information only protects the public if it reaches someone able and willing to act on it.
An independent Office of the Whistleblower would provide another route when internal processes fail.
WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WOULD DO
1. DUTY TO INVESTIGATE
A public authority would be required to take reasonable steps to investigate protected disclosures.
The proposed provision includes requirements for disclosures to be:
- · received and recorded;
- · assessed promptly and impartially;
- · handled without involvement by a person who is the subject of the concern;
- · followed through with appropriate information to the whistleblower;
- · referred externally where the authority is conflicted, implicated or has failed to act.
2. DUTY TO PREVENT RETALIATION
Public authorities and public officials would be required to take reasonable steps to prevent detriment to people who:
- · make or intend to make a protected disclosure;
- · assist another whistleblower;
- · provide evidence;
- · cooperate with the Office of the Whistleblower.
The proposed definition of detriment includes retaliation, victimisation, harassment, intimidation, dismissal, disciplinary action and loss of professional opportunity.
3. OFFICE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER
The proposed Office would be independent of:
- · public authorities;
- · public officials;
- · employers;
- · regulators; and
- · anyone whose conduct could be investigated.
Its proposed functions include confidential advice, independent legal and professional support, receiving disclosures, referral, independent investigation, monitoring retaliation, setting standards, requiring information, redress, civil penalties and reporting to Parliament.
4. INDEPENDENT ROUTE FOR CIVIL SERVANTS
Where a serious concern has not been properly investigated or addressed within a government department, the proposed Office would provide an independent route for investigation.
5. ACCOUNTABILITY TO PARLIAMENT
The proposed annual report would give Parliament information about:
- · disclosures received;
- · investigations;
- · referrals;
- · investigation times;
- · retaliation allegations;
- · enforcement;
- · systemic failures;
- · recurring institutional problems; and
- · recommendations concerning fraud, corruption and misuse of public funds.
WHY AN OFFICE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS NEEDED
An Office of the Whistleblower would not replace regulators, the police, courts, employment tribunals, inspectors or existing prescribed-person arrangements.
It would provide an independent mechanism when:
THE EMPLOYER IS CONFLICTED
THE REGULATOR HAS FAILED TO ACT
THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS IMPLICATED
THE INTERNAL PROCESS HAS FAILED
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS AT RISK
The proposed model is therefore about joining up accountability and providing support to regulators and policing – not creating another layer of bureaucracy.
THE CENTRAL PRINCIPLE
Nobody should have to choose between doing the right thing and keeping their career.
- A nurse raising a patient-safety concern protects patients.
- A civil servant exposing misuse of public money protects taxpayers.
- A police officer reporting misconduct protects public confidence.
- A social worker raising a safeguarding concern protects children.
- A regulator challenging wrongdoing protects the public.
- A professional exposing corruption protects the integrity of the organisation they serve.
Whistleblowing is not a partisan issue.
It is a mechanism of good government, public protection and institutional accountability.
FIVE THINGS PARLIAMENTARIANS CAN SUPPORT
1. A statutory duty to investigate protected disclosures.
2. A positive duty to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers and witnesses.
3. An independent Office of the Whistleblower with advice, protection, investigation, referral and enforcement functions.
4. An independent route for serious concerns where departmental or organisational processes fail.
5. Regular reporting to Parliament so that Members can see whether public authorities are actually listening to concerns.
THE PARLIAMENTARY OPPORTUNITY
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill establishes an important principle:
Public authorities and officials must act with candour, transparency and frankness.
The whistleblowing amendments would help make that principle operational because candour after a scandal is not enough.
Parliament should be leading calls to create a system in which the warning is heard before the scandal.
Georgina Halford-Hall, CEO WhistleblowersUK
Our proposals set out a simple principle that will support the success of the Bill:
HEAR – PROTECT – INVESTIGATE – ACT- LEARN
A Parliament that requires candour after a disaster should also protect the person who tried to prevent the disaster.
Please support the whistleblowing amendments to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and support the establishment of an independent Office of the Whistleblower.
For further information: WhistleblowersUK | www.wbuk.org
Parliamentary source: Public Office (Accountability) Bill — Running List of Amendments, 25 September
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/67901/documents/8852
