Why whistleblowers are worth their weight

Monday, December 22, 2008

Silence does nothing to underpin a functioning democracy, argues Catherine Wolthuizen, director of the Public Concern at Work charity

The controversy surrounding the recent alleged leaks from the Home Office raises the question, how should civil servants walk the thin line separating whistleblower from 'mole'?

No sector – public or private – can ever be fully confident of stamping out malpractice or misconduct. Whistleblowers are an integral part of alerting managers, officials or others in a position to act on any such risk, and the public relies on such information getting through to people who can address it.

The UK is fortunate to have excellent whistleblower protection in place under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which essentially operates where a whistleblower has suffered a reprisal for coming forward. Of equal importance to this legislative protection is the need to nurture a culture in our workplaces and public life which encourages those with a legitimate public concern to raise it in a manner which allows it to be considered, and appropriate action taken. Part of this is effective whistleblowing arrangements that give staff the tools to blow the whistle to the right person in the right way.

In the case of the civil service, many of the issues surrounding whistleblowing are thrown into sharp relief. The public interest in the proper administration of government functions is self-evident, but many will also argue that the process of government requires that certain information be kept confidential. Add in political interests and the Freedom of Information scheme, and it becomes clear that the many inquiries established after the arrest of Damian Green MP will have much to consider.

For civil servants concerned at what they should do if they become aware of misconduct or malpractice in their workplace, their starting point is likely be a question of conscience. The genuine whistleblower will be looking for the best way for the risk or malpractice to be addressed. The recent experience of David Pasquill, a civil servant formerly working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who struggled with his conscience on whether to blow the whistle, shows the dilemma that individuals may face when they believe there is an issue that should be part of a wider public debate.

The Act undertakes a delicate balancing exercise when determining whether protection should apply, and will look to the motives of the individual, and the reasonableness of his or her actions.

Some individuals may be less motivated by morals and their access to sensitive information will be something they would like to exploit to their own advantage. The Act provides a handy means of distinguishing the genuine whistleblower from a mole seeking personal gain. An important point to bear in mind is the latter will not be guided by their concern about how the information could be addressed. Whistleblowing advice is to help the genuine whistleblower and it is important that clear guidance about when, how and who to blow the whistle is coherently put in place. Reducing confusion over how a concern may be raised not only provides reassurance to staff, but also ensures there are options in taking the matter directly to an external party.

No department in Whitehall would want to see the adequacy of their whistleblowing arrangements tested in a manner that asks more questions than it answers. Moreover, it is hardly in the public interest that sensational disclosures can so distract from examining the content of what was disclosed and addressing it if necessary.

Public Concern at Work's 2007 report Whistleblowing in Whitehall found serious shortcomings in the whistleblowing policies of several departments, including the Cabinet Office. In light of recent events, government departments might want to revisit their arrangements and check how they would withstand the sort of test the Home Office policy (which fared quite well) might be about to undergo.

One of the major flaws identified in the report stemmed from what appeared to be a message that whistleblowing concerns were to be kept internal in all circumstances and did not make it clear when and how civil servants should approach the civil service commissioners, an external auditor, a regulatory body or a law enforcement agency. Not only is this an obligation on officials, where there is evidence of a criminal or unlawful act, under paragraph 17 of the Civil Service Code, but it is a key aspect of the statutory scheme in PIDA.

Such counter-productive and confusing advice appeared to be the result of the erroneous provisions in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance suggesting that the legislative framework creates a hermetically sealed internal process for public interest whistleblowing. The Head of the Home Civil Service has confirmed recently that the Guidance is currently being updated and the revised version will incorporate the provisions of the new Civil Service Code, including the appeals mechanisms available to civil servants should they have a concern and provisions for compliance with PIDA. We would recommend this be done urgently, to provide the necessary clarity and leadership that good whistleblowing arrangements require.

If staff don't know how to blow the whistle, or worry they will be subject to reprisals, they may feel their only option is to leak the information anonymously or via a source. In this way an honest whistleblower may not be given the tools they need to avoid a more damaging outcome that organisations would wish to avoid. Organisations faced with embarrassing leaks should ask themselves whether an internal disclosure could have been made, and if not, why not.

Mixed messages about whistleblowing can only encourage the silent majority of the workforce to stay silent – whatever the risk to employer or wider public. Silence does nothing to underpin a functioning democracy. Openness, accountability and clear communication mean problems are addressed effectively, responsibly and with the public interest as the priority.

For more information on whistleblowing, visit www.pcaw.co.uk. Public Concern at Work operates a confidential whistleblowing helplines for individuals and provides subscriptions, consultancy and training to organisations in the UK and worldwide.