Protection for Whistleblowing Bill: Second Reading
In the House of Lords today, the Protection for Whistleblowing Bill received its second reading as it progresses through Parliament. We are very proud to see the legislation once again being debated following a similar bill being brought to the House of Commons by Mary Robinson MP.
The Bill will repeal the mistrusted and discredited Public Interest Act 1998 and replace it with an Office for the Whistleblower - an Office with real teeth that will Champion Whistleblowers and Whistleblowing.
Primarily it is seeking to achieve four long term goals of WhistleblowersUK.
Introduce protections for every citizen so that no matter who someone is they can raise concerns and remain protected from a range of detriments we see on a regular basis.
Create mandatory minimum standards to ensure that concerns are investigated rather than dismissed by regulators and the Police.
Bring in significant fines and prison sentences for individuals and organisations who abuse whistleblowers and conceal wrongdoing.
Establish the Office of the Whistleblower to protect every citizen, educate people on their rights and responsibilities, investigate concerns where necessary, and monitor the health of UK whistleblowing culture
Lord Callanan’s response to the bill is once again underwhelming, echoing much of what we heard last time Baroness Kramer secured the second reading. While the Government did recognise the experiences shared by peers, including Lord Shinkwin who shared his “frightening” experience as a charity sector whistleblower, there was nothing in the way of commitment to action.
In response to questions raised by multiple members regarding evidence that the Government takes whistleblowing seriously, Lord Callanan referred to the 2017 update in reporting requirements given to prescribed bodies and the updated list of prescribed bodies due to come into effect this month. The reporting requirements are, in practice, lacking and the level of adherence by the 91 prescribed bodies is piecemeal. In all, it represents a disappointing commitment to people who should be valued by our society.
Once again, we heard concerns from the Government that this bill was premature. Repeatedly we have heard promises that there is a review coming “in due course”, something succinctly translated by Baroness Kramer to “the long-grass statement”. We recognise changes of this scale take time, but every delay represents more time where we are not hearing the concerns legitimate whistleblowers have.
Lord Calanan also highlighted the concerns about aspects of the Office of the Whistleblower. This includes the potential to frustrate regulator’s attempts to take an agile approach to their whistleblowing framework, the size and required specialism of the hypothetical staff for the Office, and the establishment of criminal offences for people blowing the whistle. In our view, these objections come from a Government who are trying to avoid committing to strengthening the UK framework.
Speaking to the press our CEO Georgina Halford-Hall, Baroness Susan Kramer, and Dr David Nicholl from DAUK’s ‘Learn not Blame’ team each summarised the day saying:
““We are delighted to have championed and supported the drafting of this Bill. For too long whistleblowers have been condemned and labeled as difficult or worse while harassment, sexual abuse and fraud have rampaged through our public and private sector leaving thousands of victims.””
“Name me a scandal and I guarantee there’s a whistleblower that tried to expose it but was ignored, threatened or gagged.
The Protection for Whistleblowing Bill changes this by giving long overdue proper protection to whistleblowers.
There is no more effective way to deter or prevent wrongdoing than the knowledge that whistleblowers will be able to speak up safely.”
“The recent case of Chris Day, as well as raft of other NHS Whistleblower cases shows that current legislation is not fit for purpose. Not only does it fail to protect NHS staff from doing the right thing by raising legitimate concerns to improve patient care, it actively encourages those who seek to suppress evidence and harass whistleblowers. This costs millions and leads to avoidable patient harm. The time is long past for legislative reform, which is why DAUK is calling for The Office of the Whistleblower to be supported through a change in legislation”
If the Government is serious about tackling the cultural problems within our society around reporting concerns then it should adopt the Office of the Whistleblower.
