On 12 October 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on whether the current whistleblowing framework is working effectively and, options for reform. The whistleblowing framework came into force in 1999, and while it has been updated over time, there have been developments which have led to concerns that the framework may no longer work as intended.
The whistleblowing framework is set out in Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) which protects workers who report wrongdoing from detriment and, if they are employees, from dismissal, where the wrongdoing is in the public interest and other conditions are satisfied. The government is consulting on various areas:
- Protected individuals: Whistleblowing protection currently applies to a wide group of individuals (covering not just employees and workers but also other groups, including those undertaking training or work experience and certain self-employed NHS practitioners). However, some stakeholders argue that the current scope is too limited. The government is therefore seeking views on whether the protections should be extended to additional groups including charity trustees, non-executive directors, volunteers, job applicants and certain self-employed individuals. The government has set out the following factors which are relevant when considering whether protection should be extended: the likelihood that the person will encounter wrongdoing; the importance of them making disclosures of wrongdoing in the public interest; the vulnerability of the person to retaliation; and whether the person has alternative reporting routes or protections available. The government’s initial view is that some groups commonly suggested for inclusion, such as volunteers, may not meet these criteria. However, other groups, such as certain self-employed individuals, may have a stronger case for protection. It is therefore seeking views and evidence before reaching a policy position.
- Public interest test: Under the existing framework, to qualify for whistleblowing protection, a worker must reasonably believe that their disclosure is ‘in the public interest’, meaning that the whistleblowing framework is not used for personal issues. However, the phrase is not defined in the ERA but has been interpreted by case law. The government is not proposing to remove the test, but is asking for views on whether the test is operating effectively and whether updated guidance would be helpful.
- List of wrongdoing: To qualify for whistleblowing protections, a worker must reasonably believe that their disclosure shows one or more of the types of wrongdoing listed in the ERA has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur. The consultation sets out that the increased use of AI may create risks to public safety, national security, and the security and resilience of critical infrastructure. The government is therefore seeking views on whether the existing categories are sufficient to capture the disclosures relating to those and other emerging risks and in addition, whether concerns relating to the misuse of public funds or the misuse or abuse of authority are adequately captured by the framework.
- Disclosure routes: The whistleblowing framework encourages a worker to report concerns internally in the first instance and sets out conditions in order for the worker to be protected. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that some workers are reluctant to use internal channels and as a result will choose to disclose directly to prescribed persons which requires them to satisfy an additional condition that they reasonably believe that their disclosure is “substantially true”. The government is seeking views on whether that higher threshold acts as a deterrent to reporting and unnecessarily complicates the framework. It is also interested in whether additional disclosure routes are needed for raising concerns at an early stage, such as to a trade union.
- Policies and procedures: Government guidance currently encourages employers to have whistleblowing policies and procedures in place. However, stakeholders have argued that as these are not legal requirements some employers do not have such policies or procedures, or those that they do have are ineffective. The consultation seeks views on two possible options: First, revised and more detailed non-statutory guidance to help employers handle whistleblowing disclosures; or the second option of a new statutory duty requiring employers to have appropriate and effective procedures for handling whistleblowing disclosures and a policy for explaining these procedures to workers. The duty broadly reflects the model in Ireland which implements the EU Whistleblowing Directive, setting out set time scales for responses.
- Interim relief: Currently employees who claim they were dismissed for whistleblowing can apply for interim relief within seven days. The consultation asks whether the current deadline for applying for interim relief in whistleblowing unfair dismissal cases should be extended to 14 days, although acknowledging that interim relief remains a relatively uncommon remedy and most applications are unsuccessful.
- Navigation of the framework: Currently a worker wanting to report wrongdoing to a regulator or other “prescribed person” must consult the list of prescribed persons. The consultation is considering whether an independent Office of the Whistleblower should be created which could act as a central point of contact. The government’s initial view is that this reform is not necessary. However, before reaching a final decision, it invites feedback on whether there is a case for establishing such a body and whether a more proportionate alternative would be to develop an AI-assisted tool to help a worker identify the correct prescribed person.
- Rewarding economic crime whistleblowers: Whistleblower incentivisation schemes financially reward people for reporting information about wrongdoing that leads to successful enforcement action. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is developing proposals for a scheme that would reward people who provide information about economic crime to the SFO. The government supports the introduction of an SFO whistleblower incentivisation scheme and is seeking views on the detail. The governments preferred structure would be:
- To qualify for a reward information must be both significant and original and must lead to a successful enforcement outcome against a company. The reward would be funded from a proportion of the financial penalty or fine paid by the company.
- The eligibility of any reward should not be linked to making a protected disclosure but should be tailored to the schemes objectives such as whether the individual has a legal duty to report the information; was culpable in the offending their disclosure relates to; has a serious criminal conviction; is an authorised Covert Human Intelligence Source; or has obtained the information through dishonest means.The reward should be calculated as a percentage of the financial penalty or fine imposed on a company. A range could be set with the exact reward determined according to factors such as the value of the information to the case, the level of cooperation, how promptly the information was reported, any complicity in the criminality reported, and the relative significance against other information that contributed to the enforcement outcome.
- The consultation also seeks views on whether a new criminal offence should be introduced for an individual who knowingly make false reports. In addition should there be a separate harassment rule for intimidating whistleblowers who report information under the scheme.
Next steps
The consultation closes on 8 January 2027. It is clear that the government is concerned that AI has changed the landscape and is concerned that the current whistleblowing framework has not changed sufficiently. The proposals regarding policies and procedures also reflects a move towards a statutory duty as set out in the EU Directive. Finally, it is interesting to see the proposal regarding the SFO reward scheme, which may impact whistleblowing in those areas.
Recent Comments