Office of the Whistleblower Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as the Bill touches on regulators, I must declare an interest as a board member of the General Medical Council.

I strongly welcome this Bill. I found the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, compelling. Few can be confident in the way in which many organisations handle whistleblowing. There are huge gaps, there is a lack of consistency and there is often confusion. Too many whistleblowers suffer retaliation and find their careers at an end. Often, their only recourse is to an employment tribunal, which can drag on for years and deplete their financial resources. We know that informal job blacklisting is common. Some regulators follow up on information vigorously, but some still treat whistleblowing as complaints from troublesome people.

The recent APPG report on whistleblowing, published in July 2020, described the UK’s whistleblowing law as demonstrating “fundamental inadequacies”. Some of its findings were striking. First, it states:

“Whistleblowers suffer more and longer than before. In 2018, nearly 40% of whistleblowers report going on sick leave, an increase of 15% since 2015.”


It goes on:

“Legal support matters for whistleblowers but less whistleblowers than before have access to legal representation … More whistleblowers self-represent than get legal representation. In contrast, employers secure more expert legal representation than ever before.”


It continues:

“Compared to male whistleblowers, female whistleblowers are … more likely to report health issues … less likely to have legal representation … even when the judge upholds the protected disclosures, they are less likely to see their unfair dismissal claim upheld”.


The proposed office of the whistleblower would help to end the fragmented approach to these problems, sort out the often complex issues of how best to protect and support whistleblowers, and give a safe point of contact for whistleblowers that can be clearly known and understood.

Of course, there are issues to be teased out in Committee. The whistleblowing organisation Protect has argued that little detail is provided about the expectations on employers and regulators when handling whistleblower disclosures. It feels that the Bill could be improved if it included specific legal obligations on both employers and regulators. I would be interested in the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on this.

Overall, I welcome this Bill. In the past, the Government have argued that establishing an office would duplicate the role of existing regulators. I am not persuaded by that. It is clear that the system is not working half as well as it ought. I very much hope that the Government will change their mind.