UK Government's Response To The Department For Business, Innovation And Skills 'Whistleblowing Framework: Call For Evidence'

A theme present in a number of press articles on "Whistleblowing" over recent months has been that, despite regulatory advances, whistle-blowers continue to be ignored, hushed or retaliated against.

This theme of "fear of reprisal" is central to the Government's published response to BIS's recent call for evidence into the current whistleblowing framework.

Following the changes introduced by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to the whistleblowing protection framework, BIS had in July last year begun seeking evidence, of which the call for evidence formed a part, on whether any aspects of the protection framework no longer worked in the way originally intended, and whether further changes are needed.

From our reading of the recently published Response we make out some of the key points and developments that will arise from the call to evidence are as follows:

1. Categories Of Disclosure Which Qualify For Protection

   The Response noted that there had been a called for additional categories to be added to the six categories of disclosure which currently qualify a worker for protection; they included:

   The incentivisation or incitement of others to conceal wrongdoing; Misreporting or pressure to misreport; Financial irregularities; Professional malpractice; Mismanagement of public funds by public bodies or private bodies in receipt of public funding; Abuse and misuse of power; Gross waste or mismanagement of funds; Serious abuse of authority; Breach of contract, employment malpractice and human rights abuses; Breach of standards of conduct/professional standards; Whistleblowing abuses outside of the UK; and Any other matter of public interest. As set out in the Response the Government considers that all of the above were already captured under the existing six categories, other than two (vi) and (vii).

   These two were considered by the Government to be too difficult to define and recognising that they could create uncertainty as to what type of activity would result in protection being available – they therefore declined to commit any change "in this area at this point".

2. Lack On Information Following Report

   The Response acknowledged that whistle-blowers were discouraged by the lack of information made available following the reporting of a matter to the relevant "prescribed person" (the UK Parliament has approved a list of "prescribed persons" to whom individuals can make reports, including HMRC, the Health and Safety...