The UK Government’s new consultation on whistleblowing

The UK Government has recently published a consultation on whether improvements should be made to the whistleblowing regime established through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (“PIDA”), (which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)) to protect workers who report wrongdoing from dismissal and other forms of retaliation by their employer. The ERA has in turn been further amended since, including broadening the definition of “worker”, removing the requirement for disclosures to be made “in good faith”, introducing a requirement that disclosures must be made “in the public interest” and most recently, amendments in April 2026 which clarified that disclosures relating to sexual harassment can now qualify for whistleblowing protection.

The new consultation suggests changes might be appropriate in the following areas.
 

Who is a Protected individual?

Those to whom the protections extend are already widely drawn, including not only workers (including employees) but also agency workers, trainees or those undertaking work experience, student nurses and student midwives, job applicants for certain NHS roles, members of a limited liability partnerships and judicial office holders.

Some stakeholders have suggested extensions to include charity trustees, non-executive directors, volunteers, job applicants (outside the NHS) and certain self-employed individuals.

The government’s initial view is that some groups commonly suggested for inclusion, such as volunteers, may not meet these criteria but other groups such as certain self-employed individuals, may have a stronger case for protection. The government is therefore seeking views and evidence before reaching a policy position.
  

The public interest test

To qualify for whistleblowing protection, a worker must reasonably believe that their disclosure is “in the public interest”. This expression is not defined. Tribunals will typically consider factors such as:-

• The number of people affected by the alleged wrongdoing: wrongdoing affecting a wider group rather than only the individual worker is more likely to be regarded as in the public interest.

• The nature of the interests affected by the alleged wrongdoing beyond the worker personally, such as public safety, customers or other colleagues.

• The nature and seriousness of the alleged wrongdoing: more serious allegations, such as significant financial fraud, are more likely to meet the test than minor internal irregularities.

• The identity of the alleged wrongdoer: e.g. wrongdoing by a large organisation, public body, regulator, or senior person is more likely to have wider consequences.

Some stakeholders argue the test is too vague and open to interpretation, creating uncertainty for both workers and employers. Other stakeholders take a different view. They argue that the absence of a strict definition allows the test to be applied, and note that the public interest test does not appear to discourage workers from whistleblowing,

The government considers the public interest test to be an important safeguard and is therefore not proposing to remove the test. However, they are interested in views on whether the test is operating effectively in practice and whether changes to GOV.UK guidance would be helpful, for example, by setting out in more detail the factors a tribunal may take into account when assessing the public interest test, explaining how the courts have interpreted the requirement, and providing practical examples of disclosures that have been found to be in the public interest.
   

The list of wrongdoing

A worker must reasonably believe that their disclosure shows one or more of the following types of wrongdoing has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur:-

• a criminal offence

• a breach of a legal obligation

• a miscarriage of justice

• someone’s health or safety is in danger

• damage to the environment

• sexual harassment

• the deliberate concealment of information tending to show any of the above.

Some stakeholders have suggested that they could be expanded, or that further clarity is needed on what types of wrongdoing fall within them. The government provides some examples of the types of wrongdoing that fall under these categories in online guidance for employers, workers and prescribed persons.

The government says that as AI technologies continue to evolve, including through the emergence of increasingly capable frontier AI models, new opportunities and risks may emerge. These may include risks to public safety, national security, and the security and resilience of critical infrastructure. The government seeks views on these potential extensions as well as tackling corruption and strengthening integrity across public life as set out in the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025, and misuse of public funds or the misuse or abuse of authority are adequately captured.
  

Disclosure routes

To be protected when reporting to an employer, a worker must reasonably believe their disclosure relates to specified wrongdoing and is in the public interest. In contrast, where a disclosure is made to a prescribed person (such as a regulator), the worker must meet an additional requirement to be protected: they must reasonably believe that the information disclosed is “substantially true”. However, the government asks whether removing the “substantially true” requirement could create risks. Reducing the threshold for protection may make it easier for workers to obtain whistleblowing protection in cases where allegations are less well founded.

The government seeks views on whether this higher threshold deters workers from making disclosures to prescribed persons and unnecessarily complicates the framework. They are also interested in whether additional disclosure channels are needed. One option raised by some stakeholders is providing explicit protection in respect of disclosures made to trade union officials.
  

Policies and procedures

Existing government guidance encourages employers to have procedures for handling whistleblowing disclosures and a policy explaining how workers can report wrongdoing. Guidance also recommends that employers keep the identity of whistleblowers confidential. However, these recommendations are not legal requirements. Some stakeholders argue that, because these are not legal requirements, some employers either do not have whistleblowing policies and procedures or have arrangements that are ineffective. For example, processes may not adequately protect a whistleblower’s identity.

The government is seeking views on whether reform is needed and, if so, on two possible options for reform.

• Option 1: Revised guidance. Under this option the government would work with key stakeholders on revised, more detailed, non-statutory guidance. However, the guidance would not be legally binding.

• Option 2: Statutory duty. Legislation would require employers to have appropriate and effective procedures for handling whistleblowing disclosures, as well as a policy explaining these procedures to workers. Employers would also be required by law to follow-up on disclosures.

Several stakeholders have identified the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”)’s whistleblowing rules in Chapter 18 of the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls sourcebook (SYSC 18) as a possible model. These FCA rules apply only to certain financial services firms, such as banks – are broadly similar to the Irish approach under section 6A of Ireland’s Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which implements the EU Whistleblowing Directive. The FCA rules, though, are less prescriptive.

Option 2 (statutory duty) could provide greater clarity and consistency by establishing clear minimum standards. However, this approach could also limit employer’s flexibility and increase compliance costs. The government would propose to introduce civil, rather than criminal, penalties for non-compliance.

In terms of scope, If the government were to follow either the Irish/EU approach or the FCA approach, it would consider applying the statutory duty to all private-sector employers (including charities and not-for-profit organisations) with 50 or more employees, and all public sector employers, regardless of size. The government would also consider excluding organisations from any statutory duty that are already subject to equivalent whistleblowing requirements in certain sectors – for example, certain firms in the financial services sector that are regulated by the FCA.

Once again, views on these options are sought.
   

Interim relief

Employees who claim they were dismissed for whistleblowing can apply for interim relief within seven days. If granted, an Employment Tribunal can order reinstatement, re-engagement, or continued pay until the case is decided. Although interim relief is intended to provide immediate protection, some stakeholders say the seven-day deadline is too short for most workers to meet and should be extended.
   

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 on GOV.UK or in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 in order to identify which person or organisation is responsible for their particular concern. While the list is comprehensive, this may be challenging in practice given there are more than 90 prescribed persons, the list is organised by sector rather than by the type of issue to be reported, and some concerns may fall within the remit of more than one regulator.

For this reason, some stakeholders have called for the creation of an independent “Office of the Whistleblower” (or for an existing body to take on this role). Such a body could act as a central point of contact, receiving disclosures and directing them to the appropriate prescribed person. They also argue that it could support wider whistleblowing functions, such as promoting good practice and improving awareness of reporting routes.

The government’s initial view is that this reform is not necessary. However, before reaching a final decision, it is seeking views.
  

Proposed scheme to financially reward economic crime whistleblowers

Whistleblower incentivisation schemes financially reward people for reporting information about wrongdoing that leads to successful enforcement action. They are typically used to help detect and address serious economic crime by encouraging people to disclose information that might otherwise go unreported.

• The Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) is developing proposals for a scheme that would reward people who provide them with information about economic crime so as to encourage more people to come forward with information, strengthening the SFO’s ability to investigate and prosecute serious fraud, bribery and corruption.

• In his Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, published in July 2026 Jonathan Fisher KC recommended that the government legislate to allow the SFO to introduce such a scheme.

The government supports the introduction of an SFO whistleblower incentivisation scheme and is seeking views on the detail in the consultation. These proposals will be considered in a further article.
   

Our reflections

Much of what the government seeks views upon seems reasonable and would represent sensible extensions and modifications of the existing regime. Commentary on the proposed scheme to financially reward economic crime whistleblowers will appear in our subsequent article. We can see merit in extending the mandatory requirements for policies and procedures (the statutory duty option 2) to a wider constituency of firms and other organisations. However, the FCA’s whistleblowing rules in SYSC 18 commend themselves as being simpler and less prescriptive than the EU /Irish approach. Furthermore, we consider that the public interest test safeguard should indeed be clarified in order to more clearly identify what is, and perhaps more importantly, what is not a disclosure in the public interest.

Author - David Capps