Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the employment rights of people with a terminal illness.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

For some time, the fundamental ask of this campaign has been the right of working people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness not to face the sack. We have spoken a lot about terminal illness over the last few weeks in this place, and I do not want us to lose momentum. We now know the legal definition of a terminal diagnosis; it is life expectancy not foreseen beyond a six-month period. Our campaign aims to protect that period of employment. We protect the period of employment at the start of life—an employer cannot sack a pregnant worker. What we are saying is that they should not be able to sack a worker who has received a terminal diagnosis.

I want to declare an interest: before I got elected, I was the midlands regional secretary for the Trades Union Congress, and one of the campaigns I worked on was called the Dying to Work campaign. The campaign was about people with a terminal illness in the world of work. We found that some employers would dismiss a worker with a terminal illness based on the grounds of capability—the bulk of employers would not dream of doing so—and we wanted to protect workers during that period, so we developed a voluntary charter that employers could sign up to that would protect workers from being dismissed because of their condition and protect their freedom to choose whether to keep working, reduce their hours or step away all together.

We put the choice into the hands of the individual. The only time that that choice is taken away from the individual is if an employer wants to take that choice for them by dismissing them from work due to their diagnosis. The charter protects employees’ benefits, such as death in service payments, protects workers’ access to a supportive and understanding workplace, and gives terminally ill workers the freedom to make the choices that are right for them without the extra stress and worry. We launched that charter in 2016, and it now protects over 1.5 million working people in this country, because employers have signed up.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on the campaign across the midlands and across the country. I was very proud to support it when I was last in this place. The sheer volume of workers who are now protected is testament to my hon. Friend’s hard work and his ability to tell such a compelling story. Could he enlighten me on whether the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the various Government Departments, which are huge employers, have signed up to the campaign? If they have not, could I extend a hand of friendship to him to help him ensure that they sign up as soon as possible?

[Lee Barron]

We managed to get the campaign promoted as best practice by the Department for Work and Pensions—meaning that if employers, through their disability awareness scheme, ever go to the Government in relation to how to treat workers with a terminal illness, they are always signposted to the campaign—but no Government Departments have signed up. However, I am aware that with the new Government coming in, those discussions are now taking place.

Although the progress made so far is commendable, it is not universal. That is why we have called this debate—so that we can the extend this right to all those who are ill. I want to recognise Richard Oliver, who is in the Public Gallery and who has been part of the campaign right from the outset; it is great that he has been able to join us today.

As I said, it is still legal in this country to sack a terminally ill worker on the grounds of capability. At a time when someone is dealing with a devastating diagnosis, they could also face the loss of their livelihood and their financial security. That is not acceptable. There has been significant discussion about dying with dignity recently, particularly relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Although that Bill has rightly captured our attention, I do not want us to lose momentum now that it has gone to Committee. These people are on a path—a journey, if we can call it that—and they should not have to worry about whether they will lose their job while they face that.

Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis, and most employers would not dream of firing their terminally ill workers.

Pubs Code: Guest Beers

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely do thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has obviously heard that I am quite easily tempted into Strangers. It is a very important part of the facilities that the Strangers Bar offers Members the opportunity to serve guest beers. It is a great opportunity to plug great local businesses.

Small independent brewers often reflect their local area in their products, from locally sourced ingredients to their marketing, branding and style. The resurgence in brewing in the UK over the last decade has strengthened awareness among the general public of local beers, whether it is the new-style craft beers or independent breweries resurrecting well-loved local beers that had been lost in the consolidation of larger breweries.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is quite right about the importance of local brewers. Stoke-on-Trent’s own Titanic Brewery serves a wonderful pint of plum porter in Strangers now and again. It is not just about the products they sell, although if they were able to access guest beer lines they could grow their business and create more jobs; it is also about the story they tell about the history of who we are. Titanic is so-called because Captain John Smith was from Stoke-on-Trent. That is often missed in our cultural storytelling: breweries are doing a great job of exporting who we are and what we are around the country and around the world.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a really important point. It is an essential part of our culture and a real selling point for us around the world. When people come here, they want to visit a traditional English or British pub, and we have a different style in every part of the country. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle about some of the larger breweries now mimicking the local brands is an interesting development, which shows that imitation is the best form of flattery.

More generally, we know there are challenges for the hospitality sector, which is still struggling to recover from the pandemic. The subsequent cost of living crisis has compounded the challenge for pubs, increasing costs and the ability of businesses to repay debts. This is an ongoing struggle. Our system of business rates is particularly unfair on high street businesses. It disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. That is why the Government are undertaking a review of the business rates system, to ensure that all businesses are paying their fair share, recognising and addressing the fact that high street businesses, including pubs, have shouldered the majority of the burden for far too long.

In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government are freezing the small businesses multiplier for 2025-26 to protect small properties from inflationary bill increases, and that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will receive 40% relief worth up to £110,000 per business. This support package alone is worth over £2.2 billion over five years. It was also announced in the Budget that the Government would reduce the alcohol duty on draft products. This will reduce businesses’ total duty bill by up to £100 million a year and increase the duty differential between draft and non-draft products from 9.2% to 13.9%, so that a pint in the pub attracts less duty than the beer in the supermarket.

The Government will also increase the cash discount provided to small brewers and producers for non-draught products and maintain the current cash discount provided to small producers for draught products. This in effect increases the relative value of small producer relief for both draught and non-draught products. Jobs, too, lie at the heart of our plans, backed by the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this month, and local growth plans will be a cornerstone of the place-based approach. We have heard already about the importance of pubs in the local economy.

Turning more specifically to the guest beers consultation announced in the Budget, the Chancellor said that the Government will consult on ways to ensure that small brewers can retain and expand their access to UK pubs and maximise drinkers’ choices, including through provisions to enable more guest beers.

At this point, let me echo the support for the work done by the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates and the Campaign for Real Ale in championing beer drinkers’ choice and pursuing the case for more independently produced beer in pubs. We will work closely with both those organisations, but also with the wider hospitality sector, to identify barriers to market access for small brewers and how they might be addressed. I want to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the current position, and of what interventions may be necessary and the impact of those interventions.

We want to find the right solutions to help small brewers gain access to the market, but to do that we will need to understand all the issues and ensure that any interventions are proportionate, that they address the problems, and that they do not result in unintended consequences. For instance, we will want to develop a good understanding of the extent to which tied tenants use existing flexibilities, by, for example, buying beer from small brewers through their pub companies on payment of a tied release fee. We will want to understand whether managed and retail pub chains could or do offer local beers, to understand the scope for increasing the provision of local beers in other licensed premises such as restaurants and hotels; and to understand the barriers preventing local brewers from gaining access to more pubs, and the reasons for those barriers. There are a range of issues that we will want to consider as part of the consultation. I can respond to my hon. Friend’s questions about what we would consider by saying that we are ruling nothing out at this stage, and that we intend to take a holistic view of the sector.

The next statutory review of the pubs code is due to take place next year, but it is only one part of the picture, as it applies to only about a fifth of all pubs in England and Wales. As has been mentioned, there is to be an interesting development in Scotland, whose pubs code will include a guest beer provision. That does not necessarily mean that the provision will automatically be transported to England and Wales, but it also does not mean that we would not be interested to see how it pans out—although, as it will not be introduced until March 2025 at the earliest, we will need a bit of time to understand how it works. We will be able to consider that as part of the consultation, and we will, of course, consult formally on all the options available to us to increase small brewers’ access to the market. It is important for us to get a handle on the complexities of the market before we undertake the consultation. We will work with SIBA and CAMRA and will engage with a range of stakeholders in the pubs and wider hospitality sectors before consulting on options.

In response to the questions about when this will happen, I can say that we will try to get on with it as soon as we can, but we do want to undertake that work before launching the formal consultation. We understand the points that have been made and the good intentions behind the suggestions that we have heard, but we want to ensure that this works for the industry as a whole.

Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend for initiating her first Adjournment debate. I look forward to working with her on these issues in the coming months, and I will certainly be taking up her offer of a drink—although, owing to diary constraints, I will probably do so on premises closer to the Chamber than to her constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered paternity leave and pay.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. My first Westminster Hall debate is being chaired by a neighbouring Member of Parliament. It is a delight to be here.

I know that families come in all shapes and sizes and that paternity leave is not just about fathers. I will refer primarily to dads in my speech, but the points that I will be making relate and apply to all families, of all shapes and sizes. I stand here as a dad, a parent, and an MP who believes that parenthood matters to children, families, employers, the economy and our country.

The UK currently has the worst paternity pay and leave in Europe and among the worst in the OECD. Fathers, if they are eligible—about 20% of them are not—can take a maximum of two weeks’ paid leave, at a maximum rate of £184 a week, which is less than half the national living wage. In 2023, 605,000 babies were born in the UK, yet only 195,000 dads received statutory paternity pay. That is less than one father for every three children. If we contrast that with the 52 weeks of maternity leave and 39 weeks of maternity pay, it is clear that our system needs to be updated for the 21st century.

As a father myself, I do have a vested interest in this issue, but better paternity rights are not just good for fathers; they are good for mums and, more importantly, for children. Last week I was able to speak to a number of parents at an event in Parliament with the Dad Shift campaign, and I heard from several dads about the difference that paternity leave—or the lack of it—had made to their relationships with their young children. I want to live in a society in which children can see both parents as caregivers, but for that to happen, it needs to be possible for both parents to be present during the vital early years. Evidence shows that the physical and social bonds that are set so early are critical for babies as they grow up and for the fathers’ connection to the children in later life. One dad I heard from at the event in Parliament, Simon, suffered from undiagnosed depression after the birth of his child. That was made worse by not having the time with his child to establish and develop that bond.

This is not the 1950s. We can all agree that most men do want to have relationships with their children, especially during the early years, but the law does not reflect that. Another dad I spoke to, George, had a generous employer who gave him more than the statutory pay and leave, and he spoke glowingly about the difference that that had made to his mental health and wellbeing, but also, of course, the balance in the household and his relationship with his child. It was great to hear that a number of employers were going above and beyond the statutory minimum, but as of 2022, 49% of employers provided the minimum statutory paternity leave.

This matter is simply too important to leave to the whim of individual employers. Change needs to start within Government and the public sector. I recently tabled a number of written questions to Departments, asking how much paternity leave their staff took on average. The only Department whose staff took more than the 14 days was the Department for Education. If we look at other Departments, the figure was 9.6 days in the Department for Transport and 7.25 days in the Department for Work and Pensions. The Cabinet Office ranked worst, with 5.7 days. The Government and the public sector should be exemplary employers, but instead they are lagging behind some private sector employers. We need as the first step a signal from the Government and from the public sector as a whole that this is something that needs to be improved.

At the Dad Shift event, I heard from mums and dads about the toll that the segregated system had taken on their careers. Making it easier for dads to look after the kids also makes it easier for mums to continue in their workplace—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has made so passionately in the Chamber only this week.

It is morally wrong to pressure women into sacrificing their career for their family, and it is also a massive productivity drain. This Government want to restore growth, create jobs and create wealth. The Centre for Progressive Policy estimates that closing the gender employment gap in all UK local authorities could increase economic output by a staggering £23 billion, and the OECD estimates that three quarters of the gender wage gap in northern and western Europe is down to the motherhood penalty.

How many talented women are we losing from the workforce because they cannot get back into work after lengthy maternity leave? How much better off could we be if both parents could take leave that was short enough not to harm their careers but long enough to support their children? Technically, that is already an option after the changes that took place in 2015 with shared parental rights. However, the Government’s own analysis found that only 1% of eligible mothers and only 5% of eligible fathers took shared parental leave. I heard from one father, Alex, who told me that the system and process of shared parental leave were so complicated to navigate that he paid a third party £50 to complete the forms for him.

Things are about to get better. I am delighted that the Employment Rights Bill had its Second Reading earlier this week; it will mark a massive step forward on paternity leave and pay, expanding eligibility by introducing day one rights to paternity and parental leave, allowing fathers to take paternity leave after they have taken shared parental leave, and facilitating a full review of all parental leave rights. The Government clearly recognise the importance of the issue and that further steps need to be taken to address it.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an issue that is clearly important to so many of us. Does he agree that even if the birth of a child has been straightforward and simple, two weeks, and the paternity pay that goes with it, passes very quickly? If there is a complication in the birth—if the mother becomes ill, for example, or if there are other complications for the child—the two weeks disappear in the blink of an eye. Then parents, especially fathers, go back to work, and fathers feel guilty about not being able to be at home to support that type of need.

Whistleblowing Protections

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered protections for whistleblowing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for today’s debate, Sir Mark. This week is Whistleblower Awareness Week, so it is a very timely debate, and one that is long overdue. For as long as there has been misconduct in public activity, there have been brave individuals willing to put their head above the parapet and highlight a problem. There have been brave individuals who have sought to shine a light on the dark recesses of corruption, and those who have said, “Up with this I will not put.”

We would normally think of those people as whistleblowers. We would think of them as being protected in some way, because we talk about protection for whistleblowers as if it is some sort of universal activity. It has, however, been shown to me, as somebody who is relatively new to the world of whistleblowing, that depending on how someone blows the whistle, on their relationship with the organisation about which they are highlighting a problem, and on the way in which they disclose that information, they could or could not be a whistleblower. I shall focus on that today. I shall also talk about the positive steps that the new Government have already committed to, and where I think there is an opportunity for further development of protections for whistleblowing. I will talk about a solution to some of the problems, which I know that people who are interested in the subject are particularly concerned about.

Over the last couple of decades, we have witnessed many problems, challenges and scandals. Those that are timely and pertinent today include the Horizon Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the tragedy of Grenfell, and the scandal of personal protective equipment NHS contracts and public waste. We often talk about whistleblowing after the event, after somebody has said, “This is a problem and we should do something about it.” The problem that leaves is that the damage is already done. We then have to say to those people that although they are doing the right thing, it could come at considerable personal cost and detriment to their character and standing. Ultimately, because of the way in which the current law is written, it could be boiled down to a dispute that ends up in an employment tribunal focusing on the relationship between the whistleblower and the organisation they are highlighting concern about, rather than the act that they were raising concern about in the first place. That leaves a whole series of problems that we need to address. I think there is a way of doing that through new laws, which I will talk about slightly later on in my remarks.

Like many of my colleagues here this afternoon, I come from a trade union background. Too often, whistleblowers end up in a situation akin to the blacklisting of trade union officials. People are willing to stand up and say the right thing, but then find themselves penalised within their sector and get labelled as the bad apple, the troublemaker or the person who has all too often tried to agitate and cause concern, when they are simply seeking to highlight something that is bad and wrong. That puts them at great risk, because the question then becomes, “Do I speak up?” Do they speak up about the bad thing that they see happening? Do they draw attention to misconduct or dereliction of public duty, or do they quietly get along with their job and life and keep their head down? The existing protections for whistleblowers do not give people the confidence to stand up and make that declaration, because of fear for their livelihood, job prospects, career and family. It is often a case of David versus Goliath, where an individual has bravely put their head above the parapet and said, “This is a problem.” Suddenly, the entire resources of large organisations are brought to bear against them.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on obtaining this important debate on whistleblowing, under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I know from speaking recently to a couple of constituents who are whistleblowers that part of the fear of speaking up, which my hon. Friend rightly highlights, is the imbalance of power between public institutions and the individual whistleblower.

The costs, as my hon. Friend said, are heavy on the individual. They can obviously be emotional, due to the stress of these processes. They can also be financial, when the individual tries to maintain their reputation against the full force of public institutions defending themselves and taking the matter through the courts. Those institutions have full access to public funds, which costs the taxpayer a lot.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s promise of a duty of candour could be a step forward in changing that imbalance of power between public institutions and whistleblowers? Hopefully, in time, if the public sector takes that duty of candour seriously, we can reduce the need for whistleblowers to call things out.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be brief.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) is absolutely right. We will not mention individual cases today, but we all know of individuals who have struggled doughtily against the huge available resources of large international corporations—public sector bodies in some cases—that have sought to use the weight and resource available to them, through their lawyers and HR departments, issuing threats and intimidation, to prevent people pursuing things they have seen and done that they know to be wrong. The organisations would rather spend that energy, time, money and effort on dismissing the whistleblower’s concern than put that resource into remedying the situation. The way my hon. Friend explained that was first class.

I want to talk about something that I found out relatively recently, as part of my work with WhistleblowersUK. I did not know that to be a whistleblower, the person has to be engaged in an employment role. I genuinely believed that the whistleblowing policies of organisations that someone had an attachment to would protect them if they saw something going wrong. I thought that if someone saw something they believed was bad—such as corruption, malfeasance, misconduct—and did the right thing by standing up and calling it out, as we all say we should, they would be protected, but they are not.

If a patient in hospital sees something, they are not protected. If a parent sees something wrong with a school, college, university or one of the many organisations their children might interact with, they are not protected. If someone is a school governor, although they have various requirements under safeguarding legislation, they are actually exposed in a way they might not be if they were employed. The contractual arrangements for contractors on site, who see the way that organisations work, would not provide protection. That is a glaring, gaping hole in protections, which we need to tackle.

That means that, when somebody does have the fortitude to stand up and say, “This is wrong,” it often ends up in an employment tribunal. The focus then is on the process by which the whistleblower raised the complaint and the detriment that individual may have incurred; it does not deal with the issue about which they were raising a flag. Again, that allows organisations to shift the emphasis and the attention of their own internal processes to that relationship rather than focusing on the issue that was raised. I think the Minister would agree that that needs to change.

The Minister knows that the new Government have made commitments, particularly through the Duty of Candour Bill, to make sure that individuals who have responsibilities in certain organisations and areas have a duty—a clear duty—to stand up and say, “This is wrong.” There also needs to be protection for that individual, so that when they comply with their new duty of candour responsibilities they can also be protected from detriment, regardless of the way in which they make that declaration to somebody who they believe can do something about it. At the moment, they are horribly exposed, which means there is a disincentive for them to do the right thing. It also means that we end up with people who, for a quiet life, would rather dismiss what they see than stand up.

It was only last night, when we were debating the Employment Rights Bill, that the Deputy Prime Minister said, in relation to the new sexual harassment arrangements for whistleblowers in the Bill:

“If they do the right thing and speak up about sexual harassment, the law will protect them.” —[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 53.]

I believe that should apply to anybody who is speaking up to highlight any problem, and not just to those who are employees where they see sexual harassment.

I welcome the fact that the Government have started a conversation about this issue and that they have taken steps, through the Employment Rights Bill, to remedy some of the deficiencies in our employment legislation. However, I return to my point: this needs to be about more than employment. It needs to be about the way we treat anyone who is willing to stand up, have their say and point out wrongdoing.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was also quite clear last night when he summed up the debate on the Employment Rights Bill, saying:

“Protection for whistleblowers is a day one right.” —[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 140.]

I am glad that we are putting that into legislation, but I say again that it only applies to those people who are whistleblowing in an employment-related context. We need to make sure that that “day one right” of protection applies to anyone who blows the whistle anywhere in the UK.

Obviously, there has been progression. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 made some progress. However, I think it is fair to say that, in and of itself, its time has probably passed, and that there is a need to reconsider seriously how to improve the opportunities for whistleblowers to make declarations in a way that they are comfortable with and that protects them, so that people who see wrongdoing have the confidence to stand up and point it out as a preventive measure, as much as a curative measure after the event.

From my trade union days, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister did admirable work on this issue before he came to this place. Where someone has the confidence that they can speak truth to power, they can stop bad things from happening in the first place. When someone has the confidence that they will be listened to and protected, that encourages people to come forward and highlight problems before there is that horrible accident at work or that social tragedy, or before an act of misconduct costs the state hundreds, thousands and in some cases millions of pounds, which is obviously money that we can ill afford to lose after the inheritance we received from the previous Government.

How can we make the situation better? I ask that question because I genuinely believe that if we are to have this kind of debate, we should talk not only about what the problems are but about how we can make things better. Later in this Parliament I hope to introduce a new version of the Protection for Whistleblowing Bill—a Bill that will comprehensively rewrite the current rules and regulations around whistleblowing. First of all, it will comprehensively define what a whistleblower is, because at the moment that is a point of debate, and because it is a point of debate we end up in litigation and arbitration, with individuals finding that they have to justify why they made a disclosure in the first place rather than everyone focusing on what the disclosure was. We absolutely need to find a way of moving away from that situation.

Such a Bill would also create a statutory power to protect whistleblowers from detriment. I say, again with my trade union hat on, that we all know that financial recompense for suffering a detriment is the only way we can remedy such detriment, but that person has still suffered a detriment; they have still had a loss as a result of their whistleblowing. So, we need to find a way to prevent the loss in the first place.

The Bill would be able to look at how we do compensation and would have a statutory power to investigate and award penalties. Importantly, it would create the office of the whistleblower. The idea of such an office is neat and clear and something that my party has previously committed to in other debates and votes. The office would be able to put that comforting arm around people who blow the whistle, regardless of where or how they blow it. It would allow parity between those large organisations, or the state, with their HR departments, lawyers and resources, and an organisation and office that acts as a friend, support and neutral crutch on which the whistleblower could lean. All too often being a whistleblower takes its toll on that person’s family, and it can be lonely and scary. An office of the whistleblower would allow that burden to be shared with an organisation, an entity, an office that has an understanding of what the whistleblower is doing and hoping to achieve. It would also be able to look across organisations and spot the patterns. All too often, whistleblowers stand up and make a declaration about something over here, and somebody else will make a declaration over there, but nobody is looking at the patterns and asking, “Is there some underlying issue that we need to address?”

The office of the whistleblower would be responsible for identifying those patterns and generating reports saying whether something untoward might be happening in that organisation, part of the state or public sector body. That would be an important way of bringing that preventive measure to bear so that we can crack down on the waste, corruption and malfeasance. We can ensure that those individuals seeking to corrupt the way they work for their own personal benefit can be highlighted and brought to bear.

Creating the office would require the Government to act. It would require primary legislation as well as the political will to say that we need to catch up with some of our European counterparts who have already moved into this space of having an office of the whistleblower. Crucially, the Minister will be aware that only 18 months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), when she was shadowing the brief that the Minister now holds, clearly committed the Labour party to supporting an office of the whistleblower. The Labour party supported an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that would have created an office of the whistleblower. I appreciate that the Minister cannot make a commitment from his position today because of the way that Government works, but I hope he will take away from the debate the commitments made in the past and the way in which the Labour party—now in government—understood the necessity of such an office, and how that has not changed. I ask whether he and his Department could review what the likelihood would be of taking that forward.

There have been reviews of the way that whistleblowing works over time. I understand that the review of the whistleblowing framework by the previous Government was completed in January. That report has not yet been published. Again, will the Minister undertake to go back to his Department, find that report and potentially publish it? If the report is deficient in some way and the review of the framework has not been undertaken in as comprehensive a way as we would all like, would he commit to refreshing it? Even if we cannot move as fast as I would like towards the outcome that I would like, would he look at reviewing the framework so that people at work, or not at work, who witness corruption, malfeasance or acts that endanger public safety have the confidence to say, “This is wrong”? If they can have the knowledge that somebody somewhere is standing with them, and that they have the support of a Government who take this seriously, we could move quickly towards a country where the scandals I mentioned at the beginning—with the devastating events that took place—could be prevented and we could all live happier, safer and better lives.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on bringing this really important debate to the House. I was reflecting on the number of different Departments involved in trying to tackle the issue, so I do not envy the Minister, but I hope that he will take the messages back to the other Departments that are connected, because I want to focus particularly on the NHS.

We know that the courageous people we have heard about, who blow the whistle, protect us and our communities, yet we do not offer them the same protection—that is the nub of the problem. As I said, I want to focus particularly on the NHS, because we have seen many examples—I will not go through them all—where someone in the NHS whistleblows and their career is in effect over, or very badly damaged, as a result. I want to raise that alarm to the House, and I hope the Minister will ensure that these messages are relayed to the Department of Health and Social Care.

In too many cases, whistleblowers face sanctions at work or threats, and the toll that takes on people’s mental health is enormous, as we heard described eloquently by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Before this Parliament, I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for a total of 13 years, including nine years as Chair, and back in 2014, when I was a member of the Committee, we looked into whistleblowing and found that there had been failure

“to protect some whistleblowers from being victimised.”

That puts it mildly. We recommended then that where the identity of whistleblowers is known, steps must be taken to

“ensure that they are protected, supported and have their welfare monitored.”

We said that that should include providing whistleblowers with

“support and advice, such as access to legal and counselling services.”

We also highlighted the fact that too often whistleblowers were “unclear” about who to raise their concerns with, and we recommended “a route map” that showed different

“internal and external reporting routes.”

The Government at the time agreed with the recommendations about a route map, but they deferred further action on whistleblowing policies across the NHS, as they were being considered separately through Sir Robert Francis’s Freedom to Speak Up review. That was a reasonable response from the Government at the time. But then I became Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and we revisited the issue of whistleblowing—and guess what? We were disappointed at the slow progress. If I had been paid £10 for every time I had to use that phrase in that role, I would probably not be here now but sunning myself in the Caribbean, because “too slow progress” is often the mantra.

We now have a new Government, with a new Employment Rights Bill, and I hope we will see further progress. We were not really convinced that change had happened on the ground and we were also very clear that whistleblowing is a sign of complete failure of the system. We should not have to have whistleblowing policies, because modern institutions that work well should have routes whereby complaints, concerns and issues are raised as a matter of routine. I will come to some good work in other sectors in a moment, but we found generally that there was not enough focus on whistleblowing in the wider public sector. The Francis review of the health sector highlighted the need for effective whistleblowing policies not just in the health sector, but more widely.

Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee revisited whistleblowing again—it seems to be a bit of a theme—and still we stressed the need to embed a “Speak up” environment. We were looking particularly at whistleblowing in the civil service at that point, but the lessons read across, sadly. The National Audit Office found earlier this year that just 52% of people in the civil service

“think it is safe to challenge the way things are done”.

That was from a review of the responses to the 2022 civil service people survey—that is a bit of a mouthful. The National Audit Office also highlighted the number in the NHS with the same concern—61.5%. That was in 2024, so this year. Less than two thirds of NHS workers think it is safe to challenge the way things are done; lots of work needs to be done to improve that.

There are institutions that do this quite well. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee visited NASA, in Washington. As a result of the tragedies with the Columbia and Challenger space shuttles, the people there have a very open approach to raising concerns. However junior someone is, they are expected to raise a concern up their chain of command in their specialist area, and if they are still concerned, they can take that to another party within the organisation—a whole other set-up—to make sure that they are challenging the approach taken on risk. That is expected. It is embedded in the training that people look at the risk and make sure that they are calling things out. Nothing is too small, and no one is too junior.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend probably has unparalleled experience in this House, through her important scrutiny work as both a member of and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; I was happy to work with her on many inquiries when I was a member of that Committee too. Could I tempt her to tell us how many millions on public procurement projects we might have saved had the system that she has just described been in place in this country? How many hours of time might have been spared? It sounds like an incredible system, and one that this country should seek to emulate.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As ever, my hon. Friend manages to cut through to a really important issue. It is not only about the whistleblower; in the whole public sector and parts of the private sector, it is time-consuming and cumbersome to deal with whistleblowing on both sides, and it is very mentally draining, particularly for the whistleblower. It is costly when a mistake happens and is not caught early. A stitch in time saves nine, as they say. That is very much the bread and butter of what the Public Accounts Committee does; it looks at where problems have arisen that could have been predicted and prevented.

The Chancellor is to launch her Budget next week and we need to save money, but—I am not being flippant—in the long term we need to see a change in culture. Aviation is another example of where things happen well. In that sector, it is expected that people call things out. Things do still go wrong, but staff get praised, rather than penalised, for calling out what might happen in safety terms.

This debate has come at an important time for my constituent, Sarah McMahon, who has agreed that I may share with hon. Members her sad experience as a whistleblower. Sarah is a consultant orthopaedic and limb reconstruction surgeon at Great Ormond Street hospital for children. In the summer of 2021, she was asked to look after some patients of her colleague, Yaser Jabbar, after he had an accident. Overseeing those patients, she found things that made her so alarmed that she blew the whistle in the autumn of that year. I am sure many Members will have heard about that case in the media; in short, Mr Jabbar was accused of inappropriate and unnecessary surgeries that led to life-changing injuries for children in his care.

Sarah McMahon wrote to suggest an external review, but nothing was done to address her concerns and Mr Jabbar was allowed to continue operating on children. She tells me:

“I was effectively told to keep quiet and concentrate on my own patients.”

Despite that, Ms McMahon bravely continued to raise concerns about Mr Jabbar and the harm caused to children in his care, and in February 2023—some 18 months after she first raised her concerns—an investigation by the Royal College of Surgeons began. That investigation concluded in spring this year and the outcome is now well known. When the investigation was launched, Sarah learnt that Mr Jabbar had raised counter-allegations against her. It was only last week that Sarah was given any information about those counter-allegations, which Great Ormond Street hospital has now confirmed were completely unfounded.

How terrible it must be for a surgeon doing their very best, working alongside a colleague with no animosity, and then discovering that there were problems. Sarah had to raise her concerns; it was absolutely the right thing to do, professionally and for the patients. She wrote to me about her experience of raising the alarm, saying:

“I have since been threatened with disciplinary action without proper basis. I feel sidelined and excluded in my work and I am exhausted. The impact of this stressful process on my health, family, reputation, and career has been profound. I feel greatly let down by the way I have been treated as a whistleblower.”

Three years into this ordeal, it is clear that hospitals cannot mark their own homework when it comes to whistleblowing concerns.

I want to raise with the Minister some points, not all of which are directly related to his portfolio. I hope that he and his civil service officials will take them back to the relevant Departments, as I ask him directly for a detailed response. An amendment is proposed to the Employment Rights Bill that would give further protection to whistleblowers; I hope it will be considered sympathetically or, if necessary, rewritten by the Government to make it work and deliver on that intention. I also hope that the Cabinet Office works hard to improve the situation across Whitehall. Its representatives appeared before us when I chaired the Public Accounts Committee, so we know that there are some bits of good practice, but a lot more needs to be done. I hope that the Government commit to making that a high priority.

I will not repeat the points that were made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the importance of the duty of candour, but I will say that we need that to be embedded in the system if we are to change the way these things work. I endorse the points made about the office for the whistleblower. Crucially, I hope that the Minister will talk to the Department of Health and NHS England. If we want to modernise our health service and ensure that patients are safe, we need to support brave people—like Sarah McMahon—who have had to go through the mill to raise concerns that have been proven to be very well-founded.

I will end with Sarah’s own words:

“Unless the safety system is radically reformed my advice to future colleagues facing this problem would be: ‘raise it, because you must, but do not expect to survive what follows.’”

What a terrible indictment of the system so far. I hope the Minister takes that message back to the relevant Departments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Mark. I start by offering my triple congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell): first, congratulations on returning to this place—it is good to see him back—secondly, congratulations on securing the debate; and thirdly, congratulations on being appointed chair of the all-party group for whistleblowing, which I am sure he will lead with distinction. We have heard a number of very important and passionate contributions today. I will do my best to sum them up, but it is fair to say that we are looking forward to working with all Members across the board on this very important topic.

Before addressing some of those points, I will start by discussing the current whistleblowing framework. As Members have said, it is essentially about employment protection, and that is the reason why I am here, as the Minister for Employment Rights, to respond on the Government’s behalf. The protections were introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The legislation was intended to provide a route for workers to make disclosures of information that they reasonably believed were in the public interest and tended to show a relevant failure or someone covering up a relevant failure. Those relevant failures could include criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation.

Disclosures need to be made in line with the requirements of the legislation, usually to a worker’s employer or lawyer, or a prescribed person. As Members may know, there are more than 90 different prescribed persons under the legislation to whom relevant failures can be reported. They are usually regulators, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. I will not go through every single prescribed person today, but most have a statutory obligation to report on the disclosures that they receive and to publish the reports annually.

Since the reporting requirements came into effect, there has been an increase in the number of disclosures that are made to prescribed persons. The volume of disclosures is around 50,000 a year and, as we can probably tell from the contributions today, they are highly concentrated in the health, public administration and financial and insurance sectors. The reports summarise the actions that a prescribed person has taken, but there is variation in how that information is protected. As we have discussed, workers have, under the law, a right not to be dismissed or subjected to a detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and there is recourse to an employment tribunal. The number of employment tribunal complaints under the jurisdiction for protected disclosure in each year since 2017-18 has increased, reaching 3,128 in 2020-21. That is the latest year for which a full dataset is available.

But enough of the overview. We need to talk about some of the important contributions that we have heard from Members. This debate is really about how whistleblowing affects individuals. We know that it can fundamentally and irrevocably damage, indeed end, that relationship with the employer. We know there are reasons why people will not speak up: some are in senior positions and fear for their career or their reputation, some may be at the other end of the spectrum and fear insecurity and power imbalances that may make it difficult to speak up, and some may have a link to the organisation but may not be covered under the legislation.

I would like to make a few comments about the contributions in this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for contributing. I am sure if he had come in earlier, his speech would have covered many of the points that had already been made, but that is the lottery of Westminster Hall, and I am sure there will be many opportunities for him to speak earlier in other debates. He referenced a number of Members’ speeches.

It was particularly pleasing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Sarah Russell), who brought her professional experience to bear today. She made an interesting suggestion about the use of “some other substantial reason” as a potentially fair reason for dismissing someone in whistleblowing cases. We probably need to look at the use of “some other substantial reason”, as it is likely that it gets overused. However, as she will be aware, the current Employment Rights Bill has enough in it for us to be getting on with. She made an interesting suggestion in respect of the potential use of the Fair Work Agency here, and that is something we will bear in mind.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), highlighted some of the legal issues under the current legislation, including the question whether someone is within scope, the hurdles that they have to overcome to qualify for protection and the public interest test. Those are all things that we want to look at in a broader sense, if we get around to a review of the legislation. I take his point about officials in the Department for Work and Pensions, but I hope that this Administration would want to be an exemplar of best practice, and we would want people to feel confident that they can speak out if they see a wrong or an injustice.

It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his customary place—I may have swapped positions, but he remains a permanent fixture over there. He spoke very movingly about his friend Brian and the great personal cost of his efforts to expose wrongdoing. Brian’s resilience came through in the hon. Member’s description of his fight. As he said, it was about doing the right thing, and his message was that,

“you are not alone when you do the right thing.”

We should be sending that message to anyone who thinks about blowing the whistle. Of course, the matter is devolved to Northern Ireland, but that message should ring out across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised some specific issues about the Department of Health and Social Care and her constituent Sarah McMahon. I am sorry to hear of the three years of personal difficulties Sarah McMahon has suffered as a result of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, too many organisations make it very difficult for individuals who blow the whistle. I understand that the Department for Health and Social Care has concluded a review of the statutory duty of candour, and it has issued a call for evidence, which I think is ongoing. I take her message of frustration about the length of time that these things take, and I will pass that message back to the Department.

However, my hon. Friend made the important point that some organisations have got it right and encourage people to speak up when they see a wrong. There are some very good examples, including the aviation industry, which is a particular exemplar of that. It is the standard that we should be aiming for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who opened the debate, said that the law looks at how things happen after the disclosure, and always through the prism of an employment relationship. That was a good analysis of where we are and perhaps why there are shortcomings in some of the legislation. I agree that this is about the law giving people the confidence to speak up. I am sure we will return to some of the things we hope to do on that.

[Gareth Snell]

I ask the Minister and his colleagues across Government to look at the way we fund and support our regulatory bodies. Often, the failure reported by a whistleblower would have been prevented from happening in the first place by a properly funded and resourced regulator. As much as anybody else, he will know that times are tough and budgets are tight, but investment in the regulatory framework early doors could help to save money and lives, and prevent people from having to put their own homes on the line to do the right thing.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I suspect that a week ahead of the Budget we will not get the kind of investment he would like to see. He talked about the legislation, focusing on existing employment relationships and the broader ambit of employment. The legislation was probably framed in that way in the first place because that is where the biggest power imbalance lies: between an employer and their employee.

We can consider how we would broaden this out, but we will bring in particular measures with our Employment Rights Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that Second Reading took place last night, when we made some specific announcements on our overall package. The Bill is the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, and in it we will address specific issues about whistleblowing on sexual harassment. The Trades Union Congress states that 58% of women have been sexually harassed at work. That is a staggering, appalling figure that must be tackled, and it is one of the reasons why we want to improve people’s ability to ring the alarm bell when sexual harassment occurs.

The Bill will require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties. It will strengthen the legal duty of employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment before it starts, and it will enable regulations to specify steps that an employer must take to protect their employees from sexual harassment to ensure that effective steps are taken. It also includes protections for whistleblowers and will make clear that sexual harassment can be the basis for a protected disclosure, which is one of the most important steps we can take to make workplaces safer. Workers who make a protected disclosure will then have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to a detriment for speaking up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, as did several other Members, the possibility of an office for the whistleblower. There were a number of suggestions about the potential remit and role that it could have. Clearly, the cost and precise functions and powers of that would need careful consideration, particularly in how it would relate to current regulators. The point he made about the resources of regulators is relevant to that. There would also have to be some consideration given to how it would exist as an independent body from Government. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton by saying that the pledge to create the office did not make it into our final manifesto, but that is not to say we are ruling it out forever and a day. We will consider it as we look at a broader review of the whistleblowing framework.

On that point, I will address the remarks made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, about the review initiated by the previous Government, which was intended to assess the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework against its original objectives. As he rightly pointed out, that review was not released before the general election. It certainly does not seem appropriate for us to let that work go to waste; I will talk to my officials about how and when we can release that information, but I see no reason why we should not do so. It will be a starting point for further work in this area.

The number of issues raised today shows that the appetite for reform in this area is much broader than the review commissioned under the previous Government recognised. Of course, other measures are due to be enacted in the next 12 months, but we can do more to ensure people feel confident when they speak out.

As several Members said, the King’s Speech made clear that we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law to introduce a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities. The Prime Minister made clear that that Bill will enter Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. We believe it will be a catalyst for a change of culture in the public sector by improving transparency and accountability where public services have failed. It will help to address the unacceptable defensive culture that is prevalent across too much of the public sector. It has been said several times that the NHS is one of the worst examples of that; certainly, from my experience, there is a hard focus on trying to justify actions, rather than get to the root of the complaint.

Bishop James Jones’s report made it clear that those things have to change, not just in the NHS, but across the whole public sector. That Bill will be an important starting point in changing the culture both in the public sector and across the country. We all want it to improve so that whistleblowers have the confidence to speak out and have the assurance that, if something happens to them as a result, they will be protected and supported.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his summation. I will make a couple of final points. I absolutely understand that the office of the whistleblower did not make its way into our manifesto, but I say to the Minister that the circumstances that led us in opposition to support to such a suggestion have not changed. Although I appreciate that we have had an election and Governments have changed, even an undertaking to meet those of us who think this proposal is part of the solution, to discuss it and go through it, would be welcome—

[Justin Madders]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister is nodding. I hope Hansard will record that fact for the purpose of my follow-up letters.

The Minister is right: I have no doubt that the Government will take seriously the protections that whistleblowers need, and that will require development and the evolution of our current protections under PIDA. That needs to be looked at. The opportunity to make the case would be welcomed. not just by me, but by those who have been campaigning on this issue for many years.

We could have spent many hours debating this subject. Members from all parties have cases in their inboxes involving individuals speaking out and coming to them with concerns about organisations, actions and activities that they have seen and are worried about. People can come to Members of Parliament; we are defined in legislation as people such issues can be reported to, and we have a duty to understand our own responsibilities and what we can do to help to foster and bring about the changes that are being raised by individuals who are brave enough to put their head above the parapet.

We have had only 90 minutes today. The contributions have been excellent, but I am sure that lurking in our inboxes will be cases of individuals who are just looking for help. One thing we should take away from this debate, which is timely as it is Whistleblowing Awareness Week, is that Members of all parties have a genuine desire to make it easier for whistleblowers to blow the whistle, and to make it better for those who come forward so that they do not suffer detriment and are not penalised for having done the right thing.

As my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly pointed out, we must send the message to those people that they are not alone, and that if they speak up, stand up and do the right thing, there are people in this place and around the country who will have their back, ensure they get the justice that they deserve and prevent the harm that could be done. I thank all Members for taking the time to participate in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered protections for whistleblowing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the towns fund is the responsibility of colleagues in MHCLG. I will happily draw his comments to the attention of the Minister who has responsibility for it. But we are determined to work across Government to breathe new life into our high streets, and I am sure that the Minister will be very interested to meet the hon. Gentleman and take forward his concerns.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Whether it is better buses, more policing or city centre living, support for our high streets ought to be a cross-Government approach, because of the many levers that are available. Can the Minister say a bit more about what conversations he is having with other Departments to ensure that support for high streets stretches across every facet of this new Labour Government?

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the current chief executive officer has stepped aside for a brief period to concentrate on the inquiry. Over the coming months, we will be reflecting on the important questions that the right hon. Gentleman raises, particularly when the outcome of the inquiry is known.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Referring to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), what role does the Minister think this Government can find for third party organisations, such as WhistleblowersUK or those organisations that work with people to highlight such scandals? As my hon. Friend pointed out, this was a systematic failure across Government and society, and we simply cannot allow it to happen again.

[Justin Madders]

My understanding is that the last Government undertook a consultation on whistleblowing. We are reflecting on the outcome of that and on the important point my hon. Friend raises. Across a whole range of bodies in this country, whistleblowers have not been heard. We need to consider whether the current legislation gives them sufficient confidence to speak out, and whether their actions and concerns are being addressed.