Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

I recently wrote a piece called " After Bristol". During its research I discovered some interesting facts about PIDA [ Public Interest Disclosure Act]. The upshot of the research is this - the government says it is working but the research says it isn't. So is the government misleading us all?

In the media, the government's position is as follows

A spokesman for the Department of Health insisted that the law did not need to be changed and that anyone who raised concerns about patient care would be protected.

He said: "Whistleblowers already have full protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

"We expect that any member of staff who reports concerns about the safety or quality of care to be listened to by their managers and action taken to address their concerns"

The main research has been done by Middlesex University

Professor Dave Lewis wrote the following some years ago.

"Although PIDA has been commended for skilfully balancing the interests of the public and of employers’, it could be argued that in reality employers' interests have been given prominence. Indeed, some would argue that internal whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures can work against the public interest in that they facilitate cover–ups and deprive the public of information about wrongdoing.

In the light of our conclusion that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers we make the following suggestions for reform. Firstly, in accordance with the basic approach to rights taken by HRA 1998, workers should be given a positive right to report concerns. This should be afforded to all those who work for and receive remuneration from another person or the State. Instead of excluding the security services altogether, it would be preferable to devise special rules for the protection of information about international relations and intelligence."

Then a review was done for 10 years of PIDA, the conclusions were as follows

"Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the operation of the UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) during its first 10 years and to consider its implications for the whistleblowing process. Method The article sets the legislation into context by discussing the common law background. It then gives detailed consideration to the statutory provisions and how they have been interpreted by the courts and tribunals. Results In assessing the impact of the legislation’s approach to whistleblowing both in the UK and elsewhere, the author draws upon empirical research. Conclusion 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"