Whistleblowing: PAC calls for civil service cultural change to create ‘speak up’ environment

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has published its report scrutinising whistleblowing in the civil service.

The report finds that it is clear the civil service has more to do to promote a culture supportive to whistleblowing, and calls for a cultural change to raise awareness and provide assurance on whistleblowing processes and create a ‘speak up' environment.

Following the PAC's findings in 2016 of disappointing progress from Government in improving whistleblowing arrangements, today's report finds that the Cabinet Office is still missing key metrics on whistleblowing concerns across the civil service, and lacks assurance over the completeness and consistency of data being reported by departments.

You can also read the attached report here.

You can find out more about the inquiry, including oral and written evidence, here.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. The Cabinet Office has made slow progress on improving data collection on whistleblowing in the civil service.Since we reported in 2016 that the Cabinet Office did not have the data it needed, it has started to collect information from departments. But there are some key metrics missing, such as data on “ongoing cases” and the length of time an investigation takes, making it difficult to understand whether cases are taking too long and why that might be the case. The current data collection also does not ask for data on the treatment of whistleblowers which would help indicate whether whistleblowers are being treated fairly. Furthermore, some of the existing data collected lacks detail, for example the data shows that less than 5% of investigated concerns lead to changes in policies or procedures which suggests a lack of action is taken in response to concerns. However, some cases do lead to new training or guidance being implemented, but this is not captured in the Cabinet Office data collection.  The Cabinet Office and departments acknowledge that addressing key data gaps could offer better insight into their whistleblowing arrangements. Furthermore, the Government People Group (GPG) does not systematically assess departments data returns for completeness or accuracy.

Recommendation 1:

2025. a) In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Cabinet Office should set out the additional data it plans to collect from departments in its annual data collection in 2024 and 2025.
2026. b) The Cabinet Office should check the data collected from departments is being reported accurately by undertaking spot checks. This should be implemented immediately. 

2. There is a lack of data analysis and sharing of insights regarding whistleblowing across of the civil service.The Cabinet Office does not utilise its central position to analyse the cross-government data it collects. This could help identify trends and valuable insights that could be shared across the civil service. Currently, the Government People Group (GPG) produces summary statistics of the whistleblowing departmental data it collects, but there is no systematic analysis performed. For example, 40% of the concerns raised over the last three years relate to fraud, but there is no further detail beyond this categorisation so the Cabinet Office do not understand why this is the case. In addition, the Cabinet Office does not review the departments completed health checks or compare them against their issued guidance. This would enable it to compare department processes, understand any differences and offer support as needed. The Cabinet Office acknowledges that it should provide more guidance and follow up with departments on their returns.

Recommendation 2: In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Cabinet Office should clearly set out the specific actions it will take to analyse and synthesise the data collected in 2024 and 2025 to help improve the knowledge of whistleblowing across the civil service.

3. A ‘speak up' environment is not yet embedded throughout departments to encourage people to comfortably raise concerns.There are still negative perceptions of whistleblowing which can create barriers to achieving the right environment for speaking up. The annual Civil Service People Survey in 2022 had a median organisational score of only 52% of people agreeing they ‘think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in my organisation'. There is a need to signal the value of whistleblowers more strongly, by building a better and more supportive culture for raising concerns. This is demonstrated by the fact that nearly half of whistleblowers only come forward anonymously. A positive attitude towards whistleblowing needs to be more than something embedded in the HR function – it needs to be embedded throughout departments, with clear messages of support from senior staff in the organisation on a local level.

Recommendation 3: In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Cabinet Office should set out how it will ensure departments will build a positive environment that will encourage whistleblowing concerns to be raised.

4. The Cabinet Office and other departments do not seek feedback from whistleblowers and so are missing vital insights into the effectiveness of the process.The ‘whistleblowing heath check' guidance from the Cabinet Office suggests departments should gather feedback from individuals on whether their concerns have been handled responsibly, professionally and in a positive manner. Feedback can provide a valuable source of information on concerns raised and also provide a whistleblower's perspective on whether the culture helps people feel safe to raise concerns. It can also help whistleblowers feel listened to and supported, and lead to improvements in the support offered to others. But we have seen no clear indications that any departments routinely seek feedback directly from whistleblowers. Some feedback can be given to departments through their Nominated Officers (senior members of staff who are nominated to receive and consider concerns), but it is not collected in a formal or systematic way for it to be informative and there are limitations with anonymous whistleblowers. By actively seeking feedback from whistleblowers they will feel listened to and more confident that their concerns are being treated seriously. It is up to the Cabinet Office and departments to collect feedback in a positive and constructive way, as suggested by their own guidance.

Recommendation 4: In its Treasury Minute response, the Cabinet Office should commit to requiring all departments to collate feedback from whistleblowers at the end of the process. It should implement this immediately and use this information to better understand the whistleblower experience and make improvements.

5. There is a lack of joined up thinking when it comes to sharing good practice across the civil service.There are some examples of good practice across the civil service but the Cabinet Office needs to do more to promote and disseminate good practice to help drive improvement and learning. The Government People Group has an online hub where it shares summaries of the department whistleblowing statistics. This is a step in right direction, but there is an opportunity to share central insights on this platform as well. Furthermore, smaller government bodies deal with whistleblowing cases less frequently and so can be less familiar with the necessary procedures and protocols. They could benefit from easily accessible information on good practice and support from their parent departments. But departments are inconsistent in how much responsibility they take for ensuring their arm's-length bodies have good whistleblowing practices in place. There is a need to ensure that good ways of working both reach and are implemented in smaller bodies.

Recommendation 5:

1. a)The Cabinet Office should work with departments to develop a way of disseminating good practice across the civil service. Within this it should pay specific attention to how this will include smaller organisations and arm's-length bodies.
2. b)It should do this work within 6 months and implement new practices shortly thereafter.