The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) came into effect in 1999 and is often touted as the gold standard in protection for whistleblowers.
Theoretically, through amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996, PIDA increases the risk of employers being taken to employment tribunal if they victimise or dismiss a whistleblowing member of staff. But does it work in reality?
Tony Wright, Labour MP for Cannock Chase, seems to think so. In April this year he told the BBC’s Panorama, “The whole point of introducing whistleblower provisions was that someone had got somewhere to go so they could raise these concerns quite properly without threatening their job, without damaging their career and indeed without having to go to the media.”
MPS’s Stephanie Brown arrives at a similar conclusion in a recent BMJ article: “It is a high test to gain PIDA protection so only the rarest of circumstances justify going straight to the media.” It’s easy to imagine an image-conscious government seeking to discourage high profile public whistleblowing (especially in vote-sensitive services like the NHS) so, if Stephanie is to be believed, PIDA may have achieved some success on that score.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t done so well with its more mundane objectives. David Lewis, Professor of Employment Law at Middlesex University, has published two papers on the subject: Five Years of PIDA and Ten Years of PIDA. The latter states: “The author concludes that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers and makes 12 recommendations for change. Despite the European Commission’s acknowledgement that whistleblowers can play a part in the fight against corruption, the author notes that common standards for their protection still seem a long way off.”
PIDA does little to protect whistleblowers in the NHS or elsewhere. Despite the impressive claims made for this legislation, and hints that whistleblowing should be encouraged on the strength of it, the risk of bullying and victimisation seem to be almost as high for today’s whistleblower as they were in 1998. Only when the Professor’s findings have been considered, and preferably incorporated into the Department of Health’s whistleblowing guidance, and implemented by NHS trusts, will staff be able to protect patients by blowing the whistle on poor practice or other dangers with any degree of safety or viable legal protection.
A review of the practical problems facing prospective whistleblowers would be an excellent starting point but, despite a request from Andrew Mitchell MP, the Health Select Committee has declined to carry one out.
Until it does so, anyone tempted to raise concerns about the standard of safety and service provided by their employers would be well advised to familiarise themselves with the likely consequences before uttering a single word.
Read our guide to whistleblowing.
Whistleblowers tales: Karen Reissman and Graham Pink; Alison Gammon; Raj Mattu; Mike Tobin; and Ian Perkin.
Tags: Whistleblowing
Whistleblowers in all walks of life and throughout history have run the risk of being ‘victimised’. The guiding principles for doctors is, and always has been, quite simple. Our primary duty is to the patient - above all else; it is our duty to protect our patients from harm - from other doctors or professionals, or indeed ‘management policies’. If one is sure of one’s facts, one can resist any attempt at ‘persuasion’ to drop the matter.