Back in May 1999, I and six other care workers blew the whistle on Isard House, a Bupa-run care home in Bromley, after witnessing shocking abuse of vulnerable older residents. We had seen people left in urine, physically assaulted and robbed by staff.
We were told to stay away while our concerns were investigated. In reality, we were isolated and forced out. We became known as the Bupa 7 and were among the first people to test Britain’s new whistleblowing law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It had arrived with a promise that public-interest disclosures would be protected. Our experience showed how thin that promise was.
An independent investigation upheld our concerns. Yet the report was ruled inadmissible in our tribunal. Before the case was heard, Bupa offered £70,000 towards legal costs with no admission of guilt. We did not blow the whistle to be paid to disappear. We wanted the abuse to stop. At the time of our dismissal, I said there was no “compassion in care”, which is why our charity set up to support whistleblowers bears that name. Since founding it in the early 2000s, we have helped more than 17,000 people through our helpline. I have heard the same story again and again: a worker reports abuse, then finds themselves treated as the problem.
Everyone agrees the law needs to change, even those who helped draft the original legislation. Under the current model too often the argument becomes about employment law when it should be about public protection. The central question should not be whether the whistleblower used the perfect procedure. It should be whether the people were at risk and whether the organisation at the centre of the whistleblowing claim acted to protect them.
Whistleblowing as an industry
Last week, whistleblowers, journalists and campaigners gathered at the Frontline Club in west London for the premiere of a new documentary, Whistleblower Inc, which examines proposed legislation known as the Office of the Whistleblower Bill. The film asks an uncomfortable question: who benefits when whistleblowing becomes an industry?
The Office of the Whistleblower Bill would establish a single non-governmental body to decide who counts as a whistleblower, determine fines of up to £18 million per case or 10 per cent of global revenue, and decide how much of that fine to pay the individual whistleblower. Crucially, it would be funded by those fines. The risk is obvious: whistleblowing could become a market, where yet again fee-sucking lawyers and organisations that funnel whistleblowers through to them will make a fortune. Making profit from whistleblowers will always be wrong.
The ones I know are people who cannot sleep
Whistleblowers are not bounty hunters. The ones I know are people who cannot sleep because an elderly resident is being mistreated, a patient is unsafe or a child is at risk. They are often frightened of losing their jobs and homes. I have never met one who began with the question: what is it worth if I tell the truth?
The film highlights concerns raised by many campaigners that money has become too central to the debate and that bad actors could exploit the language of whistleblowing for their own ends — as well as the worry that those seeking to profit from whistleblowers could harm low-paid whistleblowers by not prioritising their concerns due to the likely absence of a sizeable payout.
It uses the example of Christen Ager-Hanssen, a controversial Norwegian businessman who describes himself as a whistleblower despite a Norwegian court finding no merit in his claim. His case should make MPs ask harder questions about who is being given a platform.
The legislation needs to work
What we need is help to support whistleblowers to bring their concerns to light so that the wrongdoing stops. At Compassion In Care, we have proposed Edna’s Law, named after a vulnerable woman I knew who died after warnings were ignored. It would make it a criminal offence for employers to ignore whistleblowing concerns, and they would have a strict time limit to investigate concerns. Edna’s Law would treat whistleblowers as protected witnesses, make retaliation a criminal offence and ensure ordinary people are not left alone against well-funded corporate legal teams.
We also believe the only way to address the damage the Public Interest Disclosure Act has caused over the years would be with a full public inquiry into why it has failed so many people. That inquiry should examine employers, regulators and the whistleblowing sector itself, including any organisation that sells compliance products while claiming to speak for vulnerable whistleblowers.
Blowing the whistle is one of the hardest choices anyone can make
The Office of the Whistleblower Bill will likely be reintroduced in the near future. When it does, MPs should remember Bromley. They should remember that this began not with analysis of possible payouts but with vulnerable Londoners who could not speak for themselves.
Getting this legislation wrong again would have devastating effects for decades. Blowing the whistle is already one of the hardest choices anyone can make. We owe it to those who need the system most to get it right. Laws should be based on evidence, not those vested interests who have the cash to access Parliament.
Eileen Chubb is founder of whistleblowing charity Compassion In Care.
