One of the UKâs most important parliamentary committees, the cross-party Public Accounts Committee, published a report on 1 August 2014, that found whistleblowers are a âcrucial source of intelligence to help government identify wrongdoing.â While identifying the retaliation that UK government whistleblowers face, the Committee failed to mention one significant category of truthtellers altogether.
The Public Accounts Committee investigation was prompted by a separate report, Making a Whistleblowing Policy Work published by the UKâs National Audit Office in March 2014. Since the Public Accounts Committee scrutinises the efficiency of public spending, their hearing on 24 March and this monthâs report focused on whistleblowing in the public sector and extended to discuss private and voluntary sectors where public services are outsourced.
The Committee found that the treatment of whistleblowers is often âshockingâ and âappallingâ and recommended that legal and counselling services be offered. The report acknowledges the bullying, harassment and victimisation many whistleblowers endure, and recognised that it takes âremarkable courageâ for employees to come forward and raise concerns.
Furthermore, the report found there had been a âstartling disconnectâ between policies within government purporting to encourage whistleblowers and what happens in practice, where victimisation of whistleblowers is rarely punished. The Chair of the Committee, Margaret Hodge MP, noted that in a survey of Ministry of Defence employees, âonly 40 per cent of respondents felt they would not suffer reprisals if they raised a concern.â
However, the disconnect between whistleblower protections in theory and reality goes even further than the Public Accounts Committee admits as their report overlooks the specific problems with intelligence whistleblowing. As such, its recommendations do little to protect some the most prominent and threatened whistleblowers today.
What protections do whistleblowers have in the UK?
In the UK, employees may blow the whistle outside the workplace and to a prescribed official body if their employer does not have a whistleblowing procedure; if they feel their employer would cover up their disclosure; if they expect unfair retaliation; or if the employer has not taken action after a disclosure has already been made.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA, 1998) is designed to protect workers from employer retaliation when an employee blows the whistle in the public interest. However, it does not commit employers to respond effectively to whistleblowersâ disclosures and it does not prevent employers from âblacklistingâ the whistleblower, harming future employment prospects. Moreover, this Act does not apply to those who are self-employed or volunteers, or to individuals who work under the Official Secrets Act (1989) in the government, military and intelligence communities.
In the UK, the Official Secrets Act protects official information and state secrets from public disclosure. The Act was revised in 1989 to remove whistleblowersâ right to a public interest defence for unauthorised disclosures. That is, any unauthorised disclosure of information is now automatically a punishable criminal act with no defence – even if the information released is deemed to be of significant public value.
In 2002, former MI5 officer and whistleblower, David Shayler, was prosecuted for informing media of the misconduct and several alleged crimes of the security services, including evidence of complicity in an illegal plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, which failed but resulted in the death of innocent civilians. While it was acknowledged in court that Mr Shayler had no viable âofficialâ avenues to pursue his concerns, that his disclosures were made in the public interest and had put no lives at risk, he was found guilty and imprisoned nonetheless.
As a result of the 1989 Act, there are effectively no whistleblowing protections for employees of the UKâs security services. At present, they even lack freedom of speech within parliament. The parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the intelligence services – the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) – exempts witnesses from the âabsolute privilegeâ of being able to give evidence in parliament without incrimination that applies to other parliamentary committees.
âThe public interest defence should be reintroducedâ
Annie Machon, a former intelligence officer who helped her ex-partner Mr Shayler in blowing the whistle on MI5, and a member of the Courage advisory board, told Courage the report was âwelcome, if belated.â
Machon said:
The report doesnât help whistleblowers who emerge from the military, central government or the intelligence services. These are the very people who are most likely to witness the most heinous state crimes, yet these are also the very people who are automatically criminalised under the draconian terms of the OSA 1989. The Official Secrets Act (1989) in the UK is drafted to stifle whistleblowers rather than protect real secrets.
At the very least the public interest defence should be reintroduced to British secrecy legislation. That is not ideal, as the whistleblower would still have to prove their case in court.
Ideally, there would be a powerful body that such whistleblowers could address their concerns to, in which they had a well-founded expectation that disclosures of criminality would be properly investigated, crimes punished and meaningful reform instituted.â