Mathew Carr

UK Delays Whistleblowing Bill Debate Yet Again; Law Could Enhance People Power (6)

Reporting and analysis by Mathew Carr

Feb. 1-3, 2024 — After a series of scandals, including dead Post Office managers, 100s of billions of pounds sterling of laundered money, potential climate chaos and murdered babies, the UK government has delayed a Whistleblowing Bill on Friday that could help pivot power back to the people.

Political and financial power has swung too far to billionaires, corporations and government institutions.

The law could help drive corporations toward protecting nature and the climate (not just chasing profit), while achieving 2030 sustainable-development goals — including better equality, less discrimination.

The further month-long delay, this time by another month, will mean a debate will take place Friday March 1, 2024 — a day when parliamentarians sometimes bunk off early, as they appeared to do Feb. 2.

The new legislation could attract inward investment for Britain from global funds wanting to make sure their spending doesn’t lead to more physical and financial catastrophes. America, meanwhile, seems focussed mainly on money.

The much-delayed law creates an offense of causing a detriment to someone who has called out wrongdoing.

It widens the definition of whistleblower from existing law set under employment rules — a program known as the Public Interest Disclosure Act (1998) — PIDA — that is widely seen as failing.

Whistleblowers currently face years of grief and huge cost. One I spoke to thought he was going to die after years of fighting simply to do the right thing in the finance industry.

Dr Chris Day, challenging the NHS for 10 long years, has recently been gaslighted as having “whistlebloweritis” by a law firm — I’m assuming for refusing to put up with the coverups, victim blaming and detriments.

Day, who has gone through the ordeal that included helping convince the government that junior doctors were indeed covered by existing whistleblowing law, tells me that a law such as the one proposed probably would have helped ease his whistleblowing experience.

As for myself, in the fourth year of litigation after seeking to blow the whistle on Bloomberg LP’s bad news coverage of the climate crisis and of the effectiveness of market-structure change, I too believe the legislation below would have not only prevented my litigation but probably would have prevented my alleged unfair dismissal. (The courts have so far decided that my sacking was fair enough, even though there was some unfairness. I now claim it’s been a series of miscarriages of justice.)

This is the Precise Moment Bloomberg Covered Up My Climate Whistleblowing (3)

Under the bill, fines could reach £18 million for companies / institutions, or 10% of revenue (or even more if the government sees fit).

In the case of a person, penalties could be as much as 10% of that individual’s gross annual income, not to exceed £50,000.

These sanctions would apply to a company and/or a person found to have caused detriment to the whistleblower, for instance.

These attacks on whistleblowers appear to happen routinely in the National Health Service.

“Office of the Whistleblower”

The bill establishes a powerful “Office of the Whistleblower” which would have the ability to investigate.

The office would refer “protected” whistleblowing disclosures to the relevant regulator, perhaps while protecting the identity of the whistleblower, as well as conduct its own investigation if—

–the whistleblower has no access to an accredited scheme; 

–the whistleblower reasonably believes that he or she is being subjected to detriment, victimised or obstructed in his or her use of an accredited scheme; 

–there is a risk of the concealment or destruction of evidence should the whistleblower use an accredited scheme; or 

–there is, in the opinion of the Office, a serious or imminent risk to the public. 

The office may also have “powers of entry and inspection.”

Earlier plan abandoned

If the planned office is of the opinion that a person is contravening one or more whistleblowing standards (to be set), it may issue a written notice (an “action notice”) which requires the person to take, or refrain from taking, such steps as are specified in the notice.

Those that fail to take the said action could face the penalties listed above.

The law appears to focus on protecting whistleblowers rather than rewarding them.

In the US, whistleblowers can get 100s of millions of dollars under a “bounty” system.

Such a system risks criminals getting rewards and victims not getting a fair share.

These sticks and carrots no doubt will be part of the legislative debate, which is sorely needed because the law would be a substantial change to Britain’s political and economic landscape.

If the office becomes corrupt, or even partisan, it could be used for nefarious purposes, such as attacking companies that make political donations to the “other side” of politics or hounding companies seen as controlled by countries that become seen as enemies.

It’s somewhat surprising the debate is being left to near the end of this parliament. (Or perhaps not.)

As a counterpoint, the law would establish new tribunals, where an appeal may be brought against any decision, direction order, notice, penalty or other determination of the office. 

Friday’s abandoned debate was part of a packed legislative schedule, and I flagged here that it might be abandoned. I cited a person familiar with parliamentary matters.

The law may also be coming too late, considering this is probably an election year.

7th billing in the debates Friday

Law was introduced by:

Mary Robinson

Mary Robinson is the Conservative MP for Cheadle, and has been an MP continuously since 7 May 2015.

Robinson

Here is the proposal, which seems similar to law introduced in 2022 yet didn’t progress:

whistleblowing-bill-feb.-2024-230151Download

NOTES

One — whistleblowing payments in the US (Google Bard)

The biggest financial award to a whistleblower in the US, as of today, February 1st, 2024, was roughly $279 million. This award was announced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in May 2023.

Here’s some additional information about this record-breaking award:

  • The whistleblower’s information and assistance led to successful enforcement actions by both the SEC and another agency.
  • The award was based on a percentage of the money collected from the enforcement actions, which exceeded $1 million.
  • The identity of the whistleblower remains confidential due to SEC regulations.

It’s important to note that whistleblower awards can vary depending on the program involved and the specifics of the case. However, this particular award serves as a significant example of the potential financial rewards for whistleblowers in the US.

Here are some other resources you may find helpful:

Two— sterling idea?

Sterling idea?

(Added links, Platt, corrected protected to public in PIDA definition (blush), added tribunals, earlier, a little global perspective)

6 comments

Leave a Reply