What we do& why it mattersThe Biennial Review

What we did1 January 2005 to 1 October 2007 at a glance

Helpline• Our free confidential helpline

advised on over 2500 whistleblowing concerns.

• A third of these came from referralswithin the workplace and a thirdfrom the internet.

• 87% of callers say they wouldrecommend us to someone with awhistleblowing concern.

Services• We were commissioned to draft

a best practice standard by BSI on whistleblowing.

• Eighteen organisations took ourbespoke support packages.

• 40,000 copies of our guidance weresent to GP surgeries and NHSprimary care providers.

Public Policy• We got a new law repealed that

made workers and employers liableon a no-fault basis if an employeefailed to see or report a safety risk.

• We succeeded in getting the newCivil Service Code to refer to thewhistleblowing law.

• We unpicked the flaws that led to alandmark law lords’ decision underthe Protection from Harassment Act.

The whistleblowing law• We advised two non-lawyers who

took and won cases under thePublic Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) that reached the Court of Appeal.

• We reviewed and flagged key PIDAappeals on our website.

• Our work monitoring PIDA claims intribunals was obstructed by the rulewhich now keeps all suchinformation secret.

Public Education• We ran a pilot of whistleblowing

lessons for 12 and 16-year-oldschool children.

• We inspired ITV’s drama series The Whistleblowers.

• Our website is the top rankinginternet source on whistleblowing.

International• We visited 13 countries in four

continents to advise onwhistleblowing law and policy.

• We advised the Council of Europe,EU data protection authorities andthe World Bank.

• We met the EU Commissioner toreview their institutionalarrangements.

Who paid?• We were a self-funding charity,

with income from our services and subscriptions covering all our activities.

• The DTI was obliged to compensateus £130,000 for wasting our time aswe campaigned to uphold openjustice and the public interest.

• We now hold reserves of twice ourannual expenses.

What we doFREE ADVICE FOR PEOPLE

We do✓ explain the public interest ✓ help raise public concerns✓ separate message from

messenger✓ offer practical, informed

legal advice

We do✓ understand governance✓ make whistleblowing work✓ add real value to risk

management✓ deliver training, reviews

and surveys

PUBLIC POLICY

We do✓ focus on practical solutions✓ emphasise prevention over cure✓ build compliance in from the

outset✓ work through the likely

consequences

PUBLIC EDUCATION

We do✓ get people to think of others✓ explain how influence can work✓ see the wood and the trees✓ promote public interest

whistleblowing

We don’t✘ litigate✘ investigate✘ foster the victim culture✘ get involved in private disputes

We don’t✘ risk reputations✘ make it up as we go along✘ forget commercial interests✘ advise on specific legal cases

We don’t✘ overstate the case✘ take a party political line✘ forget systems are run by people ✘ maintain regulation is the answer

We don’t✘ duck difficult questions✘ claim we have all the answers✘ talk down to people or cultures✘ encourage anonymous informing

Public Concern at Work helps toanticipate and avoid serious risks thatarise in and from the workplace. Knownas the whistleblowing charity, we havefour activities. We

a) offer free, confidential advice topeople concerned about crime,danger or wrongdoing at work;

b) help organisations to deliver anddemonstrate good governance;

c) inform public policy; andd) promote individual responsibility

and accountability.

We approach these activities in thefollowing ways:

Preface

Five years ago, I wrote that this charity’svision was that “whistleblowing shouldbe recognised as an honourable aspectof human behaviour and an effectivemeans to promote and protect thepublic interest”. The survey on page 20shows the welcome progress there hasbeen across Britain in this regard andthat we are somewhat further aheadthan many other countries. In fact, theprogress is such that today it is difficultto recall the hostility and scepticism thatgreeted the notion that whistleblowingcould be a good thing when this charitywas being set up in the early 1990s.

Michael SmythChairman

5 November 2007

This change has been due to the workof business leaders, journalists, judges,legislators, policy makers, publicservants and regulators and to the goodsense of the British people. It has alsobeen encouraged and assisted by thework of this small, independent charity.On the facing page you can see whatwe do and, overleaf, why it matters. The rest of this biennial review explainsin more detail our work and approachand reports on our successes andsetbacks since January 2005.

On behalf of my fellow trustees, I thank the people and organisations we work with for their support, and thestaff here for their dedication, initiativeand good humour.

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

02

PRACTICAL HELP FOR ORGANISATIONS

Why it matters1986Space Shuttle Challengerexplodes on take-offNASA ignores a clear warning fromMorton Thiokol engineer RogerBoisjoly about the impendingdisaster.

1987Herald of Free Enterprise sinks –193 dead Judge finds that the warnings fromfive whistleblowers had been lost inmiddle management.

1988Media tycoon sacks and silenceswhistleblowerRobert Maxwell sacks HarryTempleton for repeatedlychallenging his misuse of thepension fund. (This only comes outin 1992 after Maxwell’s theft of£400m from the fund.)

1989First research on value ofwhistleblowingSocial Audit embarks on a researchproject on whistleblowing and self-regulation.

1990Auditors find millions missing at BCCIA year before the bank collapses in a £13 billion scandal, BCCI’sauditors find a huge hole in theaccounts. The response is to movekey documents abroad.

1991Quaker trust lays down a challengeJoseph Rowntree Charitable Trustoffers a challenge grant of £250,000over 5 years to fund a new resourcecentre on whistleblowing.

1992Matrix Churchill prosecutioncollapses as ministers fearwhistleblower may go public“The difficulty of course is notsimply that the letter exists but thatthe writer of the letter no doubtexists and he may well make itsexistence public” – official minute to ministers.

1993Charity to offer a safe haven to whistleblowersPublic Concern at Work (PCaW)launches after an eighteen monthdelay at Charity Commission whichhad disputed that providing adviceon whistleblowing could be a publicbenefit.

1994Lyme Bay disaster: Firstconviction for corporatemanslaughterThe Managing Director of anoutward bound centre is jailed fortwo years for his role in the death of four school children after herecklessly ignored employee JoyCawthorne’s graphic warning.

1995Wise heads take heedThe influential Nolan Committee andDr Tony Wright MP call for a newapproach to whistleblowing.

1996Backbench MPs hoist the flagMPs ask PCaW and the Campaignfor Freedom of Information todevelop, draft, consult on andpromote a law to protect publicinterest whistleblowers. MPs DonTouhig and Ian McCartney lead.

1997Whistle blown on HolocaustprofiteeringSecurity guard Christoph Meili isgiven political asylum in USA afterexposing a scheme at Swiss banksto conceal the fact they still hadUS$ billions deposited by victims of the Holocaust.

1998UK passes ground-breakingwhistleblowing lawRichard Shepherd MP and LordBorrie’s backbench Bill becomesthe Public Interest Disclosure Act. It is hailed by American campaignersas “the most far reachingwhistleblowing law in the world”.

1999European Commission resignsThe European Commission resignsafter an inquiry sparked bywhistleblower Paul van Buitenenfound “it is becoming difficult to findanyone who has even the slightestsense of responsibility.”

2000Dr Harold Shipman convicted of murdering patientsA judicial inquiry later found Dr Shipman had murdered 215patients and observed that awhistleblowing-friendly culturewould likely do more to protectpatients than any other reform.

2001Whistleblower thanked The Health Secretary tells MPsanaesthetist Stephen Bolsin is oweda debt of gratitude having been leftno option but to go to the mediaabout the death of 29 babies at aUK hospital.

2002Time magazine makeswhistleblowers Person of the YearAmericans Sherron Watkins, CynthiaCooper and Colleen Rowley arejointly named as Time’s Person ofthe Year for their whistleblowing onEnron, WorldCom and the failuresbefore 9/11.

2003WMD whistleblower unveiledThe Hutton Inquiry hears that MoD expert Brian Jones hadexceptionally written to intelligencechiefs warning that the 45 minuteWMD claim should not be relied on.

2004Government rule to keepwhistleblowing claims secretThe Department of Trade & Industryforces through a new rule that allinformation about whistleblowingclaims under the Public InterestDisclosure Act should be kept offthe public record.

200530 years on, Watergate’s DeepThroat is namedFBI’s former deputy director, MarkFelt, is revealed as the confidential -never anonymous - source, whosedisclosures had forced PresidentNixon from office.

2006Japan brings into force itswhistleblowing protection lawJapan’s law – like South Africa’s in2000 - closely follows the UK modeldeveloped at PCaW.

2007Culture change taking rootA survey of multinational companieswhich promote whistleblowing totheir staff shows that, acrossmainland Europe, 54% of bossessay their staff feel free to blow thewhistle on fraud, corruption andbribery. The figure in the UK is 86%.

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

04

Contents01 What we do02 Preface03 Why it matters05 A cocktail of concerns07 Helpline08 Helpline feedback09 Four cases from our files11 Public policy13 Public education 15 Services17 The whistleblowing legislation18 Five tribunal cases19 International work20 Where’s whistleblowing?21 Money22 People

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

06

Public Concern at WorkSuite 30116 Baldwins Gardens London EC1N 7RJ

email whistle@pcaw.co.uk tel 020 7404 6609 fax 020 7404 6576www.whistleblowing.org.uk

VAT no 626 7725 17Registered charity number 1025557Company registered in England 2849833

November 2007ISBN: 978-1-898809-02-9

A potentially corrupt immigration officer

Uncontrolled spending on an NHS IT project

Unreliable testing equipment in a nuclear plant

Untrained carers inserting catheters in patients

Bribing a compliance auditor about factories in China

Unlawfully depositing toxic waste on a local dump

Removing tissue samples from patients without authority

Subversion by officials of a minister’s pledge to Parliament

Care home staff using residents’ money to buy their weekly groceries

Staff sewing ‘Made in UK’ labels on clothes imported from Hong Kong

Invalid parking penalties to be enforced unless a formal complaint is made

A COCKTAIL OF CONCERNSFinancial adviser churning an elderly client’s investments to generate commission

A manager telling staff to put refunds through to cover up cash shortages

A company forging documents to make bogus foreign VAT refund claims

Catering butchers fiddling the weighing scales to overcharge customers

A contractor lying about the cause of a gas leak to safeguard bonuses

Untrained care assistants performing medical tasks risking infection

A private nursery fiddling the books to receive government funds

Well-known football club fixing the results of a fans’ prize draw

An official wilfully misleading councillors about a development

A solicitor knowingly submitting a false personal injury claim

A manager stealing thousands of pounds from his employer

A convicted fraudster appointed to a bank’s IT department

Dubious selection of winners for radio show competition

Mental health patients being made to sleep on the floor

Care home re-using disposable needles to save costs

Concealing a bribe paid to a Russian businessman

HelplineBetween January 2005 and October2007 we handled over 2,500 calls forconfidential advice on whistleblowingor public concerns. The helpline,which is free to callers, is activelypromoted by enlightenedorganisations which pay a modestannual subscription to the helpline.

In this section, we summarise someof the concerns raised with us. Below we set out key data from 2005/6about these concerns (with 2003/4 datain brackets).

Concern Type

Safety 33% (34%)

Financial 28% (30%)malpractice

Miscellaneous 27% (22%)

Abuse in care 12% (14%)

Source of contact

Internet 34% (31%)

Workplace 33% (30%)

Advice agencies 13% (17%)

Regulator 8% (8%)

Other 12% (14%)

Public concerns by sector60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Private sector

Public sector

Voluntary sector2005/6 2003/4

What we do and whyWhen someone is in a dilemma aboutwhether or how to raise a concernabout malpractice, be it a fraud or adanger or other wrongdoing, we offerthem free, confidential advice on howbest to proceed. We concentrate on thepractical options - looking at the riskand the wider picture, with the law andthe Public Interest Disclosure Act in thebackground. Our aim is to increase the chances that any public concerncan be raised in a constructive way, sothat any danger or wrongdoing can beeffectively addressed while minimisingany actual or perceived risk to the client.

While we do not litigate ourselves, we are also approached for advice by employees where they have raised a whistleblowing concern and feel they have been victimised as a result.Such approaches for help on thewhistleblowing law also come from themanagers, union advisers and lawyersof those involved.

Helpline feedback

“If I had heard of PCaW before I blewthe whistle things would have beendifferent with my case. But thanks forlistening to me when I was on myown. That was very important for my wife and me.”MM, 27 Feb 2007

“As a whistleblower (I don’tacknowledge ‘former-whistleblower’as a useful term!) I fully expected my wider career to be somewhatcurtailed by my actions. I wanted to let you know of my appointment[as Deputy Medical Director] becauseit illustrates how whistleblowing neednot impede the further career of theindividual. When asked in theinterview for what I would identify asmy greatest achievement in medicineI said the whistleblowing – because I acted when no-one else would andwas, with supportive testimony fromothers, eventually vindicated. I trulybelieve this was in the best interestsof patients and, as such, I feel Isucceeded, ultimately, in the role ofthe doctor by safeguarding patients.

Finally I do believe that Anna’s advice and her ear at timely intervals through my experience were very important in maintainingmy confidence and gave me greatsupport.”NH, 18 Oct 2006

“I was able to come to a decisionwhich I felt totally comfortable with,based on the sound knowledge andadvice I had been given......I am verygrateful to PCaW for the time theygave me and would encourageanyone who has a concern at work to contact them.”DW, 23 Nov 2006

“I found your common senseapproach to my current position veryhelpful – you were not there justdishing out advice ‘book verbatim’but gave me all the options open tome in my difficult employmentsituation in a sensitive way.”FC, 8 June 2006

We approached all those clients in 2005 and 2006 who had lefttelephone details, seeking feedback onour service. We successfully contacted450 who agreed to participate. Theresults were that:

• 94% said the advice was clear andeasy to understand

• 87% said they would recommendthe service to someone with a public concern

The following quotes are from lettersand emails sent by clients:

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

08

Four cases from our files

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

10

Ghost trainerTim co-ordinated training for an NHSTrust. He was concerned that his bosswas hiring a friend of his to delivertraining on suspicious terms which werecosting the Trust over £20,000 a year.More courses were booked than couldbe needed and the friend was alwayspaid when a course was cancelled.Though Tim asked his boss to get acredit note as happened with othertraining contracts, he never did. Timalso couldn’t understand why the friendwas paid for training sessions deliveredby NHS staff.

One day when the boss was out, Timsaw the friend enter the boss’ office and leave an envelope. His suspicionsaroused, Tim peeked inside and sawthat it was filled with £20 notes,amounting to some £2,000. Unsurewhat to do, Tim called Public Concernat Work.

Tim said his boss had lots of influencein the Trust and he was unsure who totell, particularly as the Trust was beingrestructured and none of the directorswere secure in their posts. Tim alsorecognised that the cash in theenvelope was so brazen that there could be an innocent explanation.

We said the options were going to adirector of the Trust or to the NHSCounter Fraud Unit. Either way, weadvised Tim to stick to the facts andfocus on specific suspect arrangementsand payments. We also said he should avoid the temptation to investigate thematter himself. Tim said he felt muchbetter and would decide what to doover the holiday he was about to take.

On his return, he waited a few monthsuntil two key projects had beencompleted. Then he raised his concernswith a director at the Trust, who calledin NHS Counter Fraud. Tim’s suspicionswere right: his boss and the trainerpleaded guilty to stealing £9,000 fromthe NHS and each received 12 monthjail terms suspended for two years.

Making a meal of itJo was an award-winning manager for a well known chain. She enjoyed herwork and valued the company’s ethics.Then a new divisional manager (DM)arrived, who did things his own way. He told the managers they and not theirteams should fill in the staff satisfactionsurveys as this would boost theirbonuses. Jo thought this wrong and,following company policy, reported her concern to Compliance in the US. They said they would investigate andpromised Jo confidentiality. The nextshe heard was the DM was telling other managers she had reported him.Stressed, Jo went sick and was askedto a meeting with the Head of HR. She contacted PCaW.

We ran through how the legal protection could help, explained thatblanket promises of confidentiality were undeliverable and said she haddone nothing wrong.

At the meeting, Jo was told sheshouldn’t rock the boat as the DM was a high flyer, and it was suggestedshe take more time off. Jo rang the USto ask what was happening and theyappointed their own investigators. They met with Jo and said her claimstood up.

Two weeks later Jo was called to ameeting to explain two incidents: one ayear old and the other that occurred onher day off work. We advised Jo to staycalm, warning that they were trying toset her up. At the meeting Jo was toldshe would get a final written warning. As she left the meeting, the DM wasoutside and she gave him a piece of her mind. She was then suspended.

She asked us to put her in touch withlitigation lawyers who helped her bring a PIDA claim. At the door of the tribunal,her case was settled for over £100,000.

We advised Jo to be open with her job applications and she now hasanother good job and is studying law in the evenings. She has no regrets and still values her former company,commenting that its ethics had beenhijacked by one individual. Jo says she doubted she would have copedwithout the counselling and support we had provided.

Averting a fiddleMaz was a manager for a large companythat serviced equipment in the homes of a national charity. On return fromholiday, her team told Maz that her bosshad showed them how to fiddle thebilling system so the charity would becharged for twice as much work as hadactually been performed. Maz’s teamthought that this was wrong.

Maz called PCaW for advice. She saiddoing nothing was not an option, butshe had no idea who to talk to or whatto say and was worried about goingabove her boss with whom she workedwell. We advised her that she was justpassing on the concern of her team. We checked with her that the companyhad a whistleblowing policy.

Because her staff had told her theirconcern, Maz was expected to follow it up and, as it involved her boss, wesuggested she go to the OperationsManager (OM) who was the seniorcontact on the whistleblowing policy. As Maz was worried that her boss mightfind out, we told her that she could tellhim what she was doing.

The OM made clear such a fiddle wasunacceptable and assured Maz that sheand her team would not be at risk. Afteran investigation the OM accepted theboss’s assurance that he had been inerror and asked Maz if she could rebuilda good relationship with him. Mazthought she could, but asked us first asshe said her staff would expect somesanction on her boss. We checked Mazhad no suspicion such a fraud wastaking place, and explained that she andher team had put down a strong marker.

Months later Maz rang to say she hadrebuilt a good relationship with herboss, her team was going well and therewas no suggestion of any scams. Shesaid this was all a direct result of theadvice she’d received from PCaW.

Where’s the beef?Alan delivered meat to London schoolsand rang to say he had been dismissedand threatened with an injunction forraising concerns that the meat was notkept in a fridge; recycled meat wasdelivered to schools and food was leftout overnight in summer.

We drafted a reply for him to send to the lawyers: “Thank you for your letter. I would begrateful if you could go back to yourclients as it contains some importanterrors. First, I raised my concerns manytimes with managers and seniormanagers and I can prove this.Secondly, I honestly don’t think I havesaid anything that was untrue - myconcerns about the hygiene of the vansand the dangers they and companypractices cause the food we deliver toschools are genuine and well-founded.

I have sought legal advice and I will bebringing a claim for unfair dismissal asall these disclosures are protected underthe Public Interest Disclosure Act. Myinternal disclosures are protected undersection 43C, my disclosure toenvironmental health officers under 43F and my disclosure to the cateringcompany and the school under 43C and 43G. (Please note I have had nocontact with the other school youmention for over eight months - maybesomeone else is trying to put thisproblem right as well).

My understanding is that the secrecyclauses in the handbook and mycontract are overridden by the PublicInterest Disclosure Act. I am confidentthat when you know the facts you willagree that all my disclosures areprotected and that if you had a child atthe school you would be grateful to mefor raising this matter. I hope you will notseek an injunction against me but if youdo please show the court this email andrefer it to section 43J of the Act.”

While the letter worked in halting anyinjunction, Alan and all his colleagueslost their jobs when the cateringcompany suspended orders while itinvestigated. Though the legal teamsagreed Alan had a strong PIDA claim,the firm closed down before his claimgot underway. This meant there was noway PIDA could help Alan as, undercurrent rules, there was no-one fromwhom he could get any compensationthe tribunal awarded.

Since 2005• We succeeded in persuading the

Government to repeal new legislationthat made workers and organisationsliable to pay damages on a no-faultbasis where a worker failed to see orraise a safety concern.

• Following our lobbying, the new CivilService Code – the handy guide forofficials – made explicit reference tothe whistleblowing legislation.

• The Parliamentary Ombudsman ruledthat the DTI should compensate us for wasting our time and misleadingus as we campaigned against movesto keep information about claimsunder the Public Interest DisclosureAct secret. (See page 17). The DTIapologised and paid us £130,000 butthe rules have not yet been repealed.

• We were asked to intervene in adispute between US financialregulators and the EU data protectionauthorities to help dispel the myth thatconfuses public interest whistleblowingand anonymous informing.

• We produced a paper for the SmithInstitute on corporate responsibilityand how the law can impact on theway managers and workers behave in practice. The paper also looked at a landmark House of Lords decision(Majrowski v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust) under the Protection from Harassment Act which held thatemployers were liable to pay damageswhere one employee made anotheranxious on two or more occasions.We showed that the decision was theresult of a series of accidents in thelegislative and legal process.

• The Committee on Standards in Public Life emphatically endorsedour approach to whistleblowing andour recommendations on goodpractice and the Government thenaccepted four out of five of theserecommendations.

• We prepared guidance for regulatorson whistleblowing and have urged theGovernment to drop proposals thatunannounced inspections should nolonger be a standard tool in regulatoryrisk assessments.

• The Standards Board accepted oursubmission and overhauled the ruleson whistleblowing for localgovernment councillors so they followthe approach of the legislation thatprotects workers.

• We contributed to the lobby thatsucceeded in getting the Governmentto drop plans to recover the costs of officials’ time spent reading and thinking about Freedom ofInformation requests.

• We reviewed whistleblowing policies in Whitehall departmentsincluding a league table of best andworst performers.

“Public Concern at Work, the leading campaigning charity in thewhistleblowing area, provided theCommittee with comprehensiveevidence, which repays carefulreading…...Public Concern at Workemphasised key elements of goodpractice for organisations to ensure their whistleblowing arrangementsare fit for the purpose and integral totheir organisational culture. ThisCommittee emphatically endorsesthis good practice.”Getting the Balance Right,paras 4.38 & 4.43 Committee onStandards in Public Life, Jan 2005

“As world leaders, we have no room for complacency. The legislationcovers the private and public sectorsand encourages employers andemployees to co-operate in dealingwith problems. It is a matter of goodgovernance and good government…whistleblowing is not a matter ofemployment law but one of culture...In such a context, we should welcomethe fact that there is agitation fromoutside this House. I applaud thework that has been done in civilsociety. Public Concern at Work hasworked on the issue for many yearsand deserves credit for what hashappened”.David Miliband MP, Cabinet Officeminister, House of Commons, 5 April 2005

“You were challenging and thought-provoking, as we hoped you wouldbe, and got the highest ratings on thefeedback forms – they all loved it –and particularly the manner in whichyou delivered the message, and itseven-handedness too.”Feedback on our talk on the conflictbetween EU and US authorities onwhistleblowing to the EuropeanBusiness Ethics Network, Paris,Jan 2006

“Judges who rule on evidence to deliver justice, newspapersreporting events and even corporatewhistleblowers are crucial to theoperation of western capitalism. It is the interaction of these hard and soft processes – what I call an Enlightenment infrastructure – that allows technological progress to be exploited efficiently andrelatively honestly.”Will Hutton, Work Foundation, Prospect, Dec 2006

“A useful review that highlightedgood practice in a way that enablesDepartments to adopt it in their own organisation.”Sir Gus O’Donnell, commenting on our report Whistleblowing inWhitehall, August 2007

PolicyWhat we do and whyWe encourage policy-makers in and out of government to recognise thevalue of public interest whistleblowing.With the volume of new initiatives, our policy work inevitably includeschallenging bad proposals as well as welcoming and supporting helpfulnew measures.

It is our view that unless policy-makersfactor into new laws the practical waysin which illegal or dangerous conductcan best be deterred and detected, theregulatory burden is likely to outweighthe public benefit.

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

12

“It occurred to me that you will beunaware of much of the tremendousgood you are doing and I would like tosay thank you very much for helpingme with your website and itsinformation. It has saved my job.”Email from website visitor

“Changes [in culture, such as race andsex discrimination and whistleblowing]have come about because people whobelieved that change was needed kepttalking about it and kept the issues in the public eye. That is what I thinkwe must do. Public Concern at Workdoes a great deal. But it is a smallorganisation......In my view, it is up toevery professional who feels that achange in the culture of his professionis needed to talk about it, to make hisposition clear and to take on thosewho disagree. I do not feel that I havedone much tonight because I think I am preaching to the alreadyconverted. But I talk to theunconverted as well and sometimesget a roasting; but I shall continue. I hope that you will do the same.”Dame Janet Smith DBE

• We sponsored an award for the mostwhistleblowing-friendly workplace.

• We published two editions of our occasional newsletter and abiennial review.

• Our website is updated twice a month with whistleblowing newsstories, key cases on the legislationand other developments.

• We commented on drafts of the newOUP book, Whistleblowing: the law,and spoke at its launch.

• We gave two briefings to the BritishRetail Consortium.

• We worked with the Fraud AdvisoryPanel to promote the role ofwhistleblowing in tackling fraud, and in combating misconduct inmedical research.

• Our work was covered by mediaoutlets in and out of the UK, includingBBC Radio 4, the Financial Times, theGuardian, the Daily Telegraph, theTimes, the New Statesman and theInternational Herald Tribune.

Since 2005• We have been the top-rated

whistleblowing resource on Google,MSN and Yahoo.

• We piloted in 9 schools a newprogramme to provide free teachingmaterials to help children considerand discuss whistleblowing as anaspect of good citizenship.

• We inspired the idea for and advised on ITV’s drama series, The Whistleblowers.

• Our website received over 10,000visitors (excluding spiders) a month.

• Our 4th Ethics & Accountabilitylecture was delivered by Dame Janet Smith, who had chaired thePublic Inquiry into Harold Shipman,the doctor who murdered 215 of his patients.

Public EducationWhat we do and whyOur website contains a great deal ofinformation so people can research the wider issues and teach themselves if they want. Through our work withschools, community groups and themedia, we encourage people toquestion suspicious or dangerousconduct in an open and constructiveway. We see whistleblowing as a vitallink between the consideration peoplehave for one another, the accountabilityof organisations, and the wider publicinterest.

“The boys continued to talk about thewhistleblowing workshop over lunchso it certainly stimulated discussion. It also definitely raised awareness andmade a positive link between schooland the world of work. We willcontinue to include this issue in ourPSHCE programme in future as a topicthat all forms in Year 8 should do.Thank you very much for the materials– the format and scenarios all wentdown well.”Mrs E. Hill, Deputy Head Teacher

“The work of Public Concern at Work,and its director Guy Dehn, wasundoubtedly the inspiration behind our series ‘The Whistleblowers’ forITV1. PCaW may be about taking thedrama out of a crisis, whereas we arehopefully attempting the reverse, but there is little doubt that this showwould never have happened if wehadn’t observed the charity’sgroundbreaking work.”Gareth Neame, Executive Producer,ITV series ‘The Whistleblowers’

“Your contribution was absolutelyoutstanding and much appreciatedand enjoyed by the audience”Ros Wright QC, Chair of Fraud Advisory Panel

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

14

“I am delighted to inform you that, aswe see your service as exceptionalvalue for money, we have agreed torenew our subscription.”Velindre NHS Trust (Wales)

“We have a whistleblowing policy inITV which we have messagedconsistently to our staff that they canuse, to let us know if they are beingasked to do things that they do notthink are right or if things are going on in their area which are not right,and so on. That policy has been inplace since 2006 but it has been very,very useful.”Michael Grade CBE, Executive Chairman of ITV(evidence to Parliament’s Culture, Media& Sports Committee, 24 July 2007)

Awareness of the organisation’swhistleblowing policy

Fully Aware of Know Didn’t knowaware the gist it exists it exists

Since 2005:• Employers who used our bespoke

support include: AIB, Argos, Bank of Ireland, BIA, Biffa, Eircom,Experian, Homebase, ImperialTobacco, International Power, ILP, ITV, LCH.Clearnet, Lloyds TSB Group, Nirex, Severn Trent, Total and George Wimpey and we provide bespoke helplines for the Co-operative Group and theInstitute of Counter Fraud Specialists.

• We developed and carried outworkplace culture surveys to assessattitudes, practices and experiencesof whistleblowing.

• Our helpline subscription was chargedfrom ten pence per employee peryear. Organisations that subscribeinclude: Audit Commission, CharteredInstitute of Management Accountants,Institute of Chemical Engineers,Northern Ireland Audit Office, Maritimeand Coastguard Agency, Scope,WWF, Butterfield Private Bank,Domnick Hunter, Argyll Insurance andnumerous local authorities.

• We worked with leading regulators onhow they can best use whistleblowingto raise and maintain high standardsin their work.

• We were commissioned by theGovernment to draft a BSI bestpractice guide on how organisationsshould set up, run and review aneffective whistleblowing scheme.

• We ran training sessions for the NHS,regulators and companies as well asfor the clients of Eversheds and otherleading law firms.

• The NHS in England has been thelargest subscriber to our helpline since2003 and Ministers have repeatedlyemphasised the importance of thiswork. The Department of Health (DH)praised our work to the ShipmanInquiry which called for it to beextended and 40,000 copies of ourpolicy pack ‘Whistleblowing for ahealthy practice’ were then sent to GP practices and primary careproviders. In early 2006, DH asked us to audit the work we did for theNHS and officials concluded that weunderstated the value of the supportwe provided.

Nonetheless, in March 2006 officialsgave notice on financial grounds thatDH was unable to guaranteecontinuing to fund the use of thehelpline by NHS staff but that theyhoped to renew the support or set upcomparable arrangements. Eighteenmonths later, it remains unclearwhether and what whistleblowingsupport will be provided across theNHS from 2008.

ServicesWhat we do and whyWe provide a range of support toemployers, professional bodies andregulators on how whistleblowing canwork as a key element in governanceand risk management. This is donethrough (a) off-the-shelf toolkits, (b) helpline subscriptions and promotion, and (c) bespoke support for organisations to help them get all levels of management to buy in towhistleblowing. Bespoke supportincludes policy reviews, training,freephone helplines, reporting options,surveys and annual reviews.

We provide these services to helpenlightened organisations determalpractice and demonstrate goodgovernance; to keep us at the cuttingedge of good practice in this area; tolearn from any obstacles to thispractical approach to accountability; to fund our other activities; and to buildon our position as an objective authorityon whistleblowing.

These graphs show the aggregatedresponses from five surveys of ourbespoke clients on staff awareness of their whistleblowing arrangementsand staff confidence that linemanagers will deal with publicconcerns properly.

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

16

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Confidence that your line manager would deal with a concern properly

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Wouldn’t raise it /Don’t know

Not Confident

Confident

The whistleblowinglegislation

Five tribunal cases“The purpose of the statute, as I read it, is to encourage responsiblewhistleblowing”. Lord Justice Wall, Babula v Waltham Forest College(Court of Appeal, 2007)

We monitor and publicise the UK’swhistleblowing law, the 1998 PublicInterest Disclosure Act, which we helped to devise and promote. As the Government considered therecommendations of the ShipmanInquiry to clarify a few provisions in the Act (good faith and reasonablebelief/suspicion) and to better promotethe Act, we sought comments fromother interested parties on how the Act is working. Our informal reviewsuggested that, while the Act retainssupport across key interest groups, acouple of clarifications would be helpfuland that it should be better promoted,as the Inquiry had proposed. TheGovernment said it sees no pressingneed to amend the legislation, pointingout that neither business nor unionlobbies have said it causes problems in practice.

Along with its impact in the workplace,the way the Act is used and applied intribunals and courts is critical. During2005/6 the Employment Appeal Tribunalruled on the Act in twelve cases. Threeof these were then taken to the Court ofAppeal, with the whistleblower winningin two of them. Two appeals were wonby the claimants without legalrepresentation (but with some modesthelp from us). You can read one of theirstories and the lessons to be shared atwww.pcaw.co.uk/law/selfhelp.htm

Outside of the appeal courts, it is nowimpossible to assess how the Act worksat the tribunal level. While tribunal cases

which end with formal decisions (suchas the five on the facing page) arepublic, there is now no informationabout the far greater number of casesthat settle. This is due to the ruleintroduced by the DTI at the end of2004 in the Employment Tribunals(Constitution and Rules of Procedure)Regulations (S.I. 2004, No. 1861).Despite the criticisms of MPs and peers on all sides, the fact that noorganisation publicly supported the DTI, and despite our lobbying and a scathing report by the ParliamentaryOmbudsman, the rule was passed and is still in force. Its effect is thatwherever a PIDA claim is brought and then settled, there is no information publicly available about the whistleblowing concern, the risks or the reprisal. The regulation meansthat the names of parties are also kept secret.

The rule also obscures statisticalinformation about the number of PIDAclaims brought each year. This datadoes not feature in the annual reports ofthe Employment Tribunal Service and itmay be omitted entirely from the officialfigures as the 2005/6 ETS report statesthe highest compensation awarded was£984,685 in a race claim. This ignoresthe two awards made by a tribunal inthe PIDA case Backs & List vChestertons of £1,568,686 and£3,884,580 respectively.

Of more importance, this blanketsecrecy means there is little to deterdangerous or dishonest organisationsfrom using the rule to conceal theirserious wrongdoing or to deteremployees bringing specious PIDAclaims in an attempt to extract a higher settlement.

M worked for Medirest, a cleaningcontractor, and was in charge of laundryfor elderly patients at Charing CrossHospital. In mid 2005, her bossesordered new mops and cloths whichwere to be disinfected by thermalwashing (i.e. without detergent) in themachines M used for the patients’laundry. As it turned out, the mops werewashed at 60º and not the 90º neededbecause they had been wronglylabelled. M feared these newarrangements risked infecting thepatients’ clothes and padlocked hermachines. When her bosses threatenedher with a charge of gross misconduct,M removed the padlocks and then wrote to the hospital’s CEO. He wasmost concerned and launched aninvestigation. M was then dismissed. An employment tribunal held that M’sconcerns were well founded and,entirely unpersuaded by the reasonsMedirest claimed for M’s dismissal,found her letter to the CEO was the realreason and PIDA applied. Encouragedby the hospital, Medirest then agreed toreinstate M in her job and also gave her£7,000 compensation.

S had worked for many years forcompanies in the Tyco Internationalgroup. While based in Singapore, Swas interviewed by the ManhattanDistrict Attorney who was investigatingclaims of fraud by Tyco. Instructed byTyco to co-operate, S gave evidenceabout bribes allegedly paid in Korea andalso mentioned possible tax avoidance.Shortly after the interview, S returnedhome to the UK, where he received aletter ‘for and on behalf of Tyco’dismissing him for gross misconductbut with no supporting details. S thenbrought a PIDA claim against four Tycosubsidiaries, which all denied they werehis employer and that British law

applied. The tribunal held that ADT Fire& Security were his employers and thatBritish law did apply. S’s PIDA claimwas not thereafter disputed by hisemployers and he was awarded£307,000.

In December 2004, six months after O became manager of a care home inCornwall, she became worried about itsfinancial affairs. Two months later sheraised her concerns with the regulator,CSCI, who took the issues up with adirector of Premium Care Homes, theowners. This angered the director whosaid either O or the administrator hadbeen the whistleblower. O did not denyit and was dismissed for being toofriendly with the CSCI inspector. O was awarded £12,280 under PIDA in December 2005 after the ownersdefence was struck out for theirunreasonable conduct. Premium CareHomes’ appeal was dismissed by theEmployment Appeal Tribunal inSeptember 2006. In February 2007 theRevenue served a winding-up petitionon the business and in April CornwallCounty Council was forced to take overthe running of the home to protect thewelfare of 27 frail residents.

T who worked at an MoD site as asecurity guard was convicted of kissinga child 13 years earlier and sentenced to 90 hours community service. Whenthe MoD said he could return to work,seven out of his seventy five colleaguesobjected. They said as the site was 50yards from a nursery, T could be neededto evacuate children if there was a fire.The MoD stood by its decision that Twas not a risk. After the seven did aninterview for the media about theirconcern, they were dismissed for grossmisconduct. Their PIDA claim failed asthe tribunal held that (a) there was no

rational basis for their belief and (b) itwas not reasonable to go to the mediaunder section 43G. On this point, theTribunal said it was relevant that theseven had failed to use thewhistleblowing policy.

C was a National Trust (NT) warden in charge of a stretch of north eastcoastline, which included the site of a former quarry. Coastal erosion hadcreated a real risk that chemicals andwaste from the quarry would leak ontothe beach. The NT and the local councilhad long been in dispute about whatshould be done and by whom. C wasshown in confidence by the NT a reportthe council had obtained whichhighlighted the risks of further erosion.As the report was already a year old, C thought the site should be closed.Two weeks later he passed the report to the local media, who wrote it up and quoted C. As a result, he wasdismissed. He made a successful PIDA claim. The tribunal found that the disclosure was protected as an‘exceptionally serious’ concern becausechildren played on the beach and thepublic, relying on the NT’s reputation,would think it safe. Award not known.

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

18

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

20

International workThe UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Actis increasingly seen as an internationalbenchmark on whistleblowing and, dueto our help in devising and promotingthe legislation, we are regularly asked to help on similar initiatives overseas.Since PIDA’s enactment, this hasincluded advising governments,business, unions, lawyers and NGOs in Japan and South Africa as theyimplemented similar legislation.

Since 2005, we have worked with theCouncil of Europe, the World Bank andon the UN’s anti-corruption convention.At the instigation of whistleblower and MEP Paul van Buitenen, we metwith the EU Commissioner Siim Kallasto review the EC’s whistleblowingarrangements. We also spoke at aseminar in West Virginia run by ourAmerican cousins, GAP, on how best to secure the value of whistleblowing in the civil and military nuclearprogrammes in Russia and the USA.

We have trained many internationaldelegates both here and overseas on our approach to public interestwhistleblowing. Countries we havevisited are in red, while those whosedelegates we have trained or briefed in the UK are shown in yellow.

An interesting comparatorIn March 2007, Ernst & Young asked1300 senior executives in 13 Europeancountries who worked for multinationalsthat had promoted whistleblowingwhether employees in their company feltfree to report a case of suspected fraud,bribery or corruption. Across mainlandEurope 54% said yes, by contrast in theUK the figure was 86%.

AustraliaAzerbaijanBelgiumBulgariaCanadaChinaChileDenmarkFranceGermanyIrelandJordan

KenyaKoreaNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPakistanPhilippinesSingaporeSwitzerlandUkraineUSA

“It is so impressive what you havedone to improve the situation in the UK regarding whistleblowerprotection, especially your efforts to change the social perception about whistleblowers”Secretary-General, Korean Independent CommissionAgainst Corruption

“This is my first formal exposure to the concept and I am unreservedlya convert to the principle andpractices extolled.”Assistant Police Commissioner, Jamaica

A survey of 2256 people across GreatBritain – carried out by YouGov in May2007 – asked about their knowledge ofand attitudes to whistleblowing. Thosein work (1451) were also asked whetherthey would blow the whistle and, if so,to whom.

Would you blow the whistle internally?85% said if they had a concern aboutpossible corruption, danger or seriousmalpractice at work they would raise itwith their employer.

Externally?When given the following seven optionsand asked what they would do if theyweren’t confident about telling theiremployer,

• 32% said they didn’t know what theywould do,

• 31% would most likely contact thepolice or a regulator,

• 17% would most likely contact thewhistleblowing charity, PCaW,

• 12% would most likely do nothing,

• 4% would most likely contact themedia,

• 3% would most likely contact their MP, and

• 1% would most likely contact apressure group like Greenpeace.

Where’s whistleblowing?Does your employer have a policy? 29% said their employer had awhistleblowing policy, 30% said it did not and 41% did not know either way.

Knowledge of the whistleblowing law 22% of the respondents said that to their knowledge there is a law thatprotects whistleblowers, 20% said thereis not and 57% say they do not knoweither way.

Is it insulting to be called awhistleblower?As the chart below shows, twice as manypeople in and out of work think the word‘whistleblower’ is praiseworthy as think itis insulting. (On a scale of 0-10, 40%view the word positively, 40% as neutraland 20% negatively).

How people rate the word ‘whistleblower’45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

0 – An 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 –extreme Highest

insult praise

Expenditure 2005/2006Income 2005/2006

Behind the scenes...MoneyWe are currently in the fortunate position of being a self-funding charity. Throughout our first decade we depended almost exclusively on the support of charitable foundations,but from 2003 the money we haveearned each year from services andsubscriptions has exceeded ourexpenditure. The charts on the rightsummarise our income and expenditureover the two accounting years coveredin this report. Full audited accounts areavailable on request.

The money we earn comes in equalparts from helpline subscriptions takenby employers, professional bodies andregulators, and from the bespokesupport we provide to a number ofleading companies. This income nowcovers not only the costs of the helplineand services work but also the otheractivities summarised in this report.

Over these two years the income weraised was £1,082,585. This includedthe exceptional item of £130,138compensation from the DTI.

Over these two years our expenditurewas £812,429. The work we do on thewhistleblowing law is included inhelpline costs. Our international work is included under public education or,where it is paid for, under services.

Earnings

Trusts

Donations

Compensation (Exceptional)

Interest

Helpline

Public Education

Policy

Services

Governance

As we are now trying to consolidate ourposition as a self-funding charity, anysurplus we make year on year istransferred to our reserves. At the startof 2007 our reserves stood at £625,180.

Behind the scenes...PeopleAt 5 November 2007 our staff were:

DirectorGuy Dehn

Deputy DirectorAnna Myers

Company SecretaryEvelyn Oakley

Legal OfficerCathy James

Helpline AdvisersSohrab GoyaOlabisi Olode-OkutaFrancesca West

Our Board members are:Michael Smyth (Chair), Gary Brown,Peter Connor, Derek Elliott, MauriceFrankel OBE, Chidi King, Martin LeJeune, Carol Sergeant CBE and James Tickell.

Our Patrons are:Lord Borrie QC, Lord Oliver ofAylmerton and Sir John Banham.

Our Advisory Councilmembers are:Michael Brindle QC (Chair), Roger Bolton, John Bowers QC, Steve Burkeman, Gerald Bowden,James Clarke, Tony Close CBE, Ross Cranston QC, Dr Yvonne Cripps,Baroness Dean, Zerbanoo Gifford,Edwin Glasgow QC, Roger Jefferies,Rosalie Langley Judd, David Owen,Chris Price, Mike Sibbald, Dr ElaineSternberg, Dr Marie Stewart, StephenWhittle and Marlene Winfield OBE.

The progress that is detailed in thisreport would not have been possiblewithout the help and hard work of ninepeople who have moved on to higher,better or more relaxed things. We weresad to see each of them go and we give them all our profound thanks andbest wishes –

Jean Brown, our long-serving volunteer administrator

Shonali Routray and Fatima Shah, both legal officers

Roisin Kennedy, helpline adviser

Paul Stephenson, a civil servant onsecondment from the Home Office

Oli Sweet, who developed our survey work

Harry Templeton, who ran our part-timeScottish office

Kirsten Trott, who was deputy director

Robin Van Den Hende, who was ourpolicy officer.

Thanks to Lavish for the design andproduction of this review.

PU

BLI

C C

ON

CE

RN

AT W

OR

K

22