Further relaxation of UK bankers' remuneration rules: deferral periods for bonuses to be shortened and other changes
了解更多
The Employment Rights Bill – What it might have meant for whistleblowing…
On 4 September 2025, the House of Lords' proposed amendments to the Government’s Employment Rights Bill (the Bill) were published.
A subsequent Government statement indicated that it would overturn amendments tabled by the Lords which would have weakened the Bill, including watering down the day 1 protection from unfair dismissal and limiting those able to benefit from the ban on exploitative zero hours contracts – see here. Unlike some of the measures proposed by the Lords which would have arguably softened the impact of the Bill, a proposed Amendment 46 by the Lords sought to enhance protection for those making whistleblowing "protected" disclosures under Sections 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. While one might have thought, therefore, that this particular proposal might have been adopted, it was yesterday rejected by the Government – see here. The reason given for this rejection was "Because it is inappropriate to make changes in the manner proposed to the protections for workers who make protected disclosures and to the duties of employers in relation to such disclosures."
The regulations to have been made under the proposed new Section in the Bill would have applied to any employer with 50 or more employees, or annual turnover or balance sheet total of £10 million or more.
Even if those criteria were not met, it would also have applied to "all operations in financial services". At present, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)'s SYSC 18 whistleblowing rules in its Handbook only apply to a relatively narrow range of regulated financial services businesses due to the narrow definition of "firm" in those particular rules.
The rules would also have applied to other businesses with vulnerabilities to money laundering or terrorist financing. The latter could have included all businesses covered by the Money Laundering Regulations 20171.
The regulations would have extended the circumstances in which an employee is considered unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure, although it does not indicate how this would be changed.
The regulations would also have required in-scope employers to take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under section 43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This in turn would likely have required them to introduce policies and procedures for that purpose.
When making these regulations, the Secretary of State would have had to publish statutory guidance setting out what “reasonable steps” should include.
While the Government's rejection of the proposed changes may come as a relief for employers, its rejection appears to run contrary to the general tenor of the Bill, which seeks to enhance employee rights and protections. Perhaps a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?
Author – David Capps
1 The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017
