WHISTLEBLOWING AND GOVERNMENT

 23 February 2000

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this conference.  I have no doubt that it will prove useful in clarifying the legislation and its application to the public sector.

We had always made clear that, if elected, we would introduce legislation to protect workers who blow the whistle from victimisation. I supported similar legislation in Opposition, and am delighted that we have been able to fulfil our commitment in Government.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act came into force in July 1999. It is legislation that was much needed. We backed Richard Shepherd’s Private Member’s Bill for two reasons. The first is that it can help to improve the way organisations are run

Second, there have been - as we all know - examples of disgraceful victimisation in the past.

Inquiries into major disasters of the past decade had found that workers had been aware of potential dangers and/or wrongdoings but had either been too scared to sound the alarm or had raised the matter and it was ignored or they were threatened with the sack.

Disasters such as: the Clapham rail crash. The Hidden Inquiry into the disaster found that it was known that loose wiring was risky, but no one wanted to rock the boat.

The Herald of Free Enterprise – the Sheen Inquiry found that workers in the Ferry Company were aware of the dangers of leaving port with bow doors open. They had raised their concerns on a number of occasions, but nothing was done.

Piper Alpha – the Cullen Inquiry concluded that workers did not want to put their continued employment in jeopardy through raising a safety issue, which might embarrass management.

Collapse of BCCI – the Bingham Inquiry into this banking collapse found that within BCCI there was a climate of fear, where staff felt intimidated and were reluctant to voice their worries.

Lyme Regis outward bound canoeing disaster – an employee in an Outward Bound centre in Lyme regis was so concerned about poor safety standards that she resigned after warning the managers. Her warnings went unheeded. The result was the death of 4 children in a canoeing accident.

These major tragedies may have been averted had the Public Interest Disclosure Act been in place earlier. It is against the background of these tragedies that we committed ourselves to introducing legislation as soon as an opportunity arose.

This legislation has been a long time coming. Tony Wright’s ten minute rule Bill helped raise the profile of this important issue. An earlier attempt by Don Touhig to introduce similar legislation failed when the then Government disgracefully refused to support it and used a range of parliamentary tactics to kill a proposal which has wide spread support amongst the business community, Trade Unions and public sector organisations.

And at last, with Richard Shepherd’s support provided us with an early opportunity to fulfil our commitment.

I am grateful to Tony Wright, Don Touhig and Richard Shepherd for their unstinting work over the years in helping to deliver this legislation – and for raising the profile of "whistleblowing".

The issues covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act – crime, breaches of legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, health and safety and environmental dangers – confirm its importance in the workplace.

I firmly believe in this legislation. When in Opposition – during the passage of Don Touhig’s Private Member’s Bill. I believe my statement at that time is still a good description of what this legislation is all about.

I said:
"the Bill is about good governance, whether in the public, the private or the voluntary sector. It would assist, in establishing better management techniques; it would be an aid, not a drag, on management. Over time, it would assist companies to change their culture and to ensure good practice and good management internally.

As fraud was rooted out companies would prosper: they would not be weakened or lose out as a result of fraudulent activities." I saw the issue as more of a crime prevention measure than purely an employment rights agenda item.

That is why there is no limit on the compensation for an employee dismissed for whistleblowing.

The Act will ensure the provision of good quality public services. The managers of those services would be accountable for the way in which they were managed and for the contractual arrangements that were agreed between them and the service providers. The Act will also ensure good codes of practice in the voluntary sector when managing public resources."

The Committee in Standards in Public Life succinctly summarised the legislation in its second report:

Attitudes in the workplace are already changing as a result of this legislation. It is helping to encourage a open working environment where employers and employees co-operate in dealing with wrongdoing. It provides the basis for greater openness in the workplace where individuals can raise issues of concern without fear of recrimination.

The adoption of management systems and best practice techniques and the putting in place of disputes procedures will help employers deal with failures that arise in private and public sector organisations. This is a matter of good management practice and efficiency and fairness, and as such applies to the way organisations operate generally, not just whistleblowing.

It augurs well for the success of this legislation that it received support from Business Leaders and Trades Unions. It also had cross-party support.

Some of the Codes that have been developed – by both employers and Unions - are proof of the seriousness that is being attached to the legislation. The Unison guide "Speaking Out without Fear" and the IPD Guide are two good examples, but there are other examples.

The title of this conference is Whistleblowing and Government.

In case there is any misunderstanding - let me set out clearly on the public record that the legislation covers those working in both the public and private sectors. It applies to those working in central Government as well as in local Government.

The legislation was timely. It complements existing ‘whistleblowing’ procedures within the Civil Service.

The Code is part of all civil servants’ terms and conditions of employment. The Code was felt to be needed for two reasons:

• to provide a statement of the core values of the impartial Civil Service; and
• to put in place the establishment of an independent appeals procedure for civil servants to raise matters of concern relating to issues of propriety or ethical standards.

The Code imposes a duty on civil servants to report instances where they are being required to act in a way which:

• is illegal, improper, or unethical;
• is in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code;
• may involve possible maladministration; or
• is inconsistent with the Civil Service Code.

The Code recommends that civil servants should first raise matters of concern internally. This must be right. Indeed, this goes to the heart of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The majority of concerns about propriety, conduct and legality of certain actions will be resolved in mature discussion within normal line management responsibilities.

Employers and employees benefit from working in a culture that is open. Identifying and sorting out problems before they get out of hand is not only grown-up, but more effective.

However, built into the Civil Service system is an arrangement whereby a civil servant who is unhappy with the response received to their complaint can raise the matter with the independent Civil Service Commissioners.

The legislation allows people to whistleblow not just on an internal basis but allows disclosure to regulatory bodies, to the police, media and MPs.

Ideally, complaints or concerns should be raised internally. It is, after all, in the interests of the organisation and its workforce that issues and concerns are aired in this way.

The Civil Service is no different. It cannot be good management practice if a worker feels that the only way to bring attention to a problem is to go outside, for example, to the media.

But, we also recognise that it will not always be possible for individuals to raise matters internally.

Exceptionally, if a civil servant feels unable to raise the matter internally – because of the seriousness of the issue and/or the possibility that it might get brushed under the carpet - the Civil Service Commissioners would consider accepting a complaint direct.

These procedures appear to be working well. But they are now reinforced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

Under the provisions of the Act, it is open to a civil servant to use the avenues for disclosure specified in the legislation, although we would expect this to be an extremely rare occurance.

There is a much stronger case for a reference in the Civil Service Management Code.

In view of the importance the Government attaches to this legislation and the fact that it interacts directly with civil servants existing rights of appeal, the guidance and the proposed Code amendment are with the Council of the Civil Service Unions for comment and an announcement will be made shortly.

Conclusion

Dealing effectively with wrongdoing and failures should be an integral part of good working practices. All of us – whether employer or employee – have a key role in working together to prevent problems arising in the first place, and to ensure that any failures are resolved quickly.

The Government’s role is to provide a robust legal safety net. Disasters, such as the Clapham Rail Crash, can never be allowed to happen again.

We have ensured that people have a right to whistleblow. They can do so secure in the knowledge that they are protected against action taken by their employer. And then if action is taken, the remedy of unlimited compensation.

Whistleblowing is not about being a grass. It is about being able to raise matters of real concern. It is about not sweeping things under the carpet.

It is about accountability and responsibility.

It is about making a difference.

Back to speeches homepage