We have a rare opportunity to give whistle blowers the support they deserve

4 min read14 February

Stronger protections for whistleblowers are good for employees and employers, and will help prevent scandals like the Post Office disgrace from happening again.

Anyone who has been, or supported, a whistleblower knows the playbook. The whistleblower is subject to smears, initially deemed a nuisance who should be ignored and then an opponent to be attacked.

We have experienced this over the past four-and-a-half years when exposing the racial harassment and bullying that have secretly scarred cricket for decades. No matter how many reports and investigations confirm the dark underbelly of the sport, no matter how many players apologise or admit to racist remarks or actions, cricket’s establishment will not accept its mistakes.

The popularity of cricket meant that the revelations attracted significant media attention, but other whistleblowers have exposed even greater miscarriages in their workplaces. Countless scandals could have been prevented or mitigated if whistleblowing complaints were properly investigated. These include the Post Office Horizon disgrace, the Grenfell fire tragedy and the collapse of Carillion.

The Employment Rights Bill, which is about to reach the Report Stage in the House of Commons, offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to overhaul how employers and colleagues treat both whistleblowers and the complaints themselves.

This is why we’re backing an amendment, likely to be tabled at the House of Commons report stage, that will put a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowers’ concerns.

At present, there are only after-the-event remedies for whistleblowers who are harmed, providing no help or guidance on how an employer should respond when a complaint is made. Proposed by the charity Protect, such a duty would, in effect, guarantee a response from the employer to the alleged wrongdoing.

Around two-fifths of those who call Protect with whistleblowing concerns say they have been ignored at work. Yet, more than three-quarters of workers want a legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns raised by employees, according to research Protect commissioned from YouGov.

There is strong evidence that whistleblowing is good for business. The Association of Fraud Examiners has found that 42 per cent of fraud cases are uncovered by tip-offs – the majority from employees – nearly three times the next most common form of detection method. The Institute of Directors, which is the UK’s longest-running organisation for professional leaders, has recommended that “all employers should be required to meet standards for whistleblowing and follow recognised procedures”.

While we want whistleblowers to be treated fairly, we understand the importance of the presumption of innocence and that some claims will be without merit. A duty to investigate would make it easier to deal with vexatious complaints because it would require any whistleblower to have their claims thoroughly investigated through proper procedures. Such claims would be dismissed, minimising the risk of creating a toxic environment through gossip and innuendo. If a complainant is shown to have made claims they know to be untrue, they could be more easily found out and disciplined.

While it would be preferable for all legitimate whistleblowing concerns to be thoroughly investigated, it is clear this is an unrealistic short-term goal for smaller businesses. The burden would simply be too great, particularly at a time of economic recovery.

It is better to mandate this proposal for larger firms of, for example, 50-plus employees or turnover of more than £10m. This would largely follow a European Union directive on whistleblowing, which is now seen as a benchmark for European countries. If any such employer fails to comply with the new law, workers would be able to bring an additional claim at a turbinal, resulting in an increase of 25 per cent in compensation granted. Even with that size restriction, many smaller companies – the employers who want to attract skilled staff and have growth aspirations – will inevitably follow what would be legally established as best practice.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has rightly argued that the Employment Rights Bill will “deliver security in work as the foundation for boosting productivity and growing our economy”. It has also been good to see that strengthening whistleblowing protections concerning sexual harassment is a core aspect of the bill.

This amendment neither challenges nor diminishes any aspect of the bill. Rather, it complements and adheres to the principles of protecting employees and encouraging growth. Moreover, grandees from the three main parties – former ministers Baroness Margaret Hodge (Labour), Sir Robert Buckland (Conservative) and Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) – have already spoken in favour of the Protect’s proposals, illustrating there is support right across the political spectrum.

The last major employment rights legislation was passed in 1996, nearly three decades ago. This, then, is a must-seize moment for our generation. This amendment will help make sure the type of problems we’ve seen at the Post Office, Carillion and in cricket do not develop into the scandals that damage so many lives.

Alex Sobel is the Labour MP for Leeds Central and Headingley. Azeem Rafiq is an author, race relations campaigner and former professional cricketer for Yorkshire County Cricket Club.

PoliticsHome Newsletters

Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.