Public Interest Disclosure Act
The Petition of Eileen Chubb of the Bupa 7 whistleblowers, and Director of the charity Compassion in Care,
Declares that following the Petition of 15 July, in which the Petitioner urged the former Government to address the failures of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), the response was one of “No comment”; further that the House should note the report “Breaking the Silence: Part 1”, which is available via www.compassionincare.com and contains evidence of 1500 whistle-blowers who have been failed by PIDA and that the information contained in this report is a damning indictment of any civilised country; and that the Petitioner believes that the report shows that recent changes to PIDA will be entirely ineffective as will the recommendations of the Francis Inquiry.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action by considering the evidence submitted in the report and replace PIDA before any more needless suffering and loss of life occurs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Charlotte Leslie, Official Report, 8 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 609.]
[P001283]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills:
The Public Interest Disclosure Act was introduced after receiving cross-party support in 1998. This followed a number of major incidents where it became evident post event, that staff had been aware of risks but were either afraid to raise concerns, or had done so but were ignored, or the concerns were not raised in the right way. It was hoped that the existence of a legal framework would remove the fear of reprisal if individuals raised the alarm about matters which were of public interest.
Prior to the introduction of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA) 2013 there was debate both within Government and with interested parties about the effectiveness of the whistleblowing protections, and a number of areas were highlighted as needing improvement.
Changes to the following areas were made through the ERRA:
The introduction of a public interest test—requiring an individual who brings a claim at an employment tribunal to show they had a reasonable belief that their disclosure was in the public interest;
An amendment to the good faith test—ensuring that in the event a person is unable to show that they have not made a disclosure in good faith, they do not automatically lose their claim as had been the case previously, but may incur a reduction in any compensatory award the tribunal may award in respect of that claim by up to 25%;
The introduction of vicarious liability—ensuring that an individual who has suffered a detriment from a co-worker as a result of blowing the whistle, can bring a claim against both the co-worker and the employer, who may be vicariously liable for the actions of the co-worker; and
An amendment to the definition of “worker” to include contractual arrangements in the NHS. Previously certain NHS workers, including GPs were not covered by the whistleblowing protections in the Employments Rights Act.
These changes came into force in June 2013 and, as such, it is too early effectively to evaluate their impact.
Between July and November 2013, Government ran a call for evidence on the remaining areas of the framework which were unaffected by the changes introduced through the ERRA. The call for evidence sought to understand if there were further areas which may need changes.
Responses to this call for evidence, including “Breaking the Silence Parts 1 and 2” (referred to by the petitioner), are currently being analysed and the Government expects to be able to publish its response before Easter.