Police Reform Bill (HL)


Thursday 27 June 2002
Committee Stage
Rt Hon John Denham MP, Minister

We welcome this Government amendment which will give police officers the same protection for whistleblowing as the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) provides other workers, including their civilian colleagues.

The need that police officers should not be discouraged from blowing the whistle on wrongdoing was strongly supported in 1998 during the passage of Richard Shepherd MP’s Public Interest Disclosure Bill. The Government gave assurances then and since that police officers would receive PIDA equivalent protection. Most recently, Lord Borrie and Lord Phillips of Sudbury’s amendment to the Police Reform Bill to include officers within PIDA received cross-party support in the Lords and a warm response from Home Office ministers. This Government amendment follows recent assurances ministers gave the House of Lords1 and the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee2. The Home Affairs Select Committee has also recommended such an amendment3.

While steps were taken post-PIDA to address the issue under police regulations, in ACPO guidance and in recommendations from HMI of Constabulary, the position has remained that a police officer has no enforceable protection or remedy in respect of victimisation he suffers for properly raising concerns about wrongdoing. This amendment changes this and is of added significance as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will have a role in dealing with whistleblowers.

This amendment will

  • give officers the security to question and, where necessary, challenge or report wrongdoing internally
  • help police forces deter and detect serious wrongdoing
  • assist the IPCC to fulfil its functions, particularly on conduct matters.

By helping police forces and police officers combat and be seen to combat wrongdoing, this amendment will also help maintain and enhance public confidence in the police. As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMI) has observed:

“Policing by consent relies on the overwhelming majority of the public…trusting and respecting individual officers and staff; the reality is this reputation can be seriously harmed if only a few fail.”4

Whistleblowing: the position at present and under the original Bill
Since 1998 the Government has been clear that police officers should have effective whistleblower protection. However, officers were not then brought within PIDA because they are not employees or workers and PIDA was technically an employment law measure. This objection no longer holds water as other changes in this Bill will give officers modern employment terms and conditions.

Following the support of the Police Complaints Authority, ACPO and MPs for the inclusion of police officers in PIDA, the then DTI Minister Ian McCartney MP confirmed to the Commons on the Bill’s Report that

“The Government gave an absolute commitment…that the police regulations will provide protection equivalent to that in the Bill.”5

In the light of this commitment, the Home Office changed police regulations and issued new guidance6. However, all the evidence is that these changes have not and can not provide equivalent protection to PIDA and to leave officers uncertain about whether it is safe and accepted for them to blow the whistle. This is because the only option for a victimised officer is to bring a grievance against the colleagues who victimise him or against the managers who fail to prevent this. Recent research by HMI clearly demonstrates that police officers have little or no confidence neither in grievance procedures nor in the ability of their seniors to protect them from victimisation.

The fact is that the Bill as introduced did not afford officers either remedy or redress if they are victimised for lawful whistleblowing. This amendment rectifies this defect and provides them with the same basic protection as other workers, including civilian colleagues within their force.

The value of this amendment
Since 1998 a number of forces and ACPO have taken steps to create a culture where officers will less likely feel that questioning wrongdoing is unacceptable. Yet, the dilemma of an honest officer concerned about wrongdoing is such that, as the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) has observed,

“The position of the internal informant, particularly if a young officer, can be alarming even if colleagues and management behave impeccably.”7

This amendment will provide that much needed reassurance and allow the officer to have confidence in the policies of the particular force.

Outside of those Forces that are leading moves to more open, responsive policing this amendment is equally necessary. As is clear from research from HMI on whistleblowing policies:

“There is a strong feeling amongst officers and support staff that retribution, subtle or direct, would result from making complaints against colleagues. There is a perception no one commends such officers for demonstrating moral courage.”8

While this amendment will help give the majority of officers the confidence they need, it will also unambiguously provide the protection that those who do challenge wrongdoing are entitled to expect but do not presently receive. Quite apart from what we know from our confidential helpline, this is clear from the comments of the PCA, which reports:

“The provision of information and evidence from fellow officers is often the most effective means of cracking down on serious officer misconduct including corruption. The PCA is aware of cases where internal informants or whistle blowers have come under pressure from their superiors to submit false statements or to withdraw damaging statements about their colleagues’ behaviour. To the whistle blower the choice can be to collude with malpractice or to jeopardise their career. At the same time whistle blowers can experience victimisation, intimidation, ostracism and threats by colleagues which inevitably lead to high levels of distress.”9

In one recent case, a member of the PCA stated that:

“I recall talking to a ‘whistleblower’ who found himself ostracised after reporting a fellow officer for corruption. A good officer, he became an outcast, vilified by his fellow officers and left largely unsupported. He says, and I believe him, that he seriously considered suicide. He had been badly let down by the force.”10

More generally, by making real the protection of officers who do speak out, this amendment will help challenge the perception that a ‘canteen culture’ means that police officers will ‘look after their own’ and refuse to speak out against even the most serious malpractice.

The suitability of PIDA for police whistleblowing
The suitability of PIDA as a vehicle to protect honest police officers is apparent from ACPO’s recommendation;

“that an appropriate clause be inserted into the [Public Interest Disclosure] Bill … along the lines of that which brings Police Officers within the provisions of sex and race discrimination legislation.”11

PIDA is well suited to addressing whistleblowing within the police as is apparent from the facts that

  • one of the categories of PIDA concerns that Parliament expressly decided should be protected was ‘miscarriages of justice’12 and
  • the status of the Criminal Cases Review Commission as a prescribed person (making disclosures to it more readily protected).

In addition, PIDA protects civilian workers in the police. However, this situation and the continued exclusion of officers from PIDA may produce unjust outcomes. For instance, a civilian worker who is victimised for raising a concern about an assault in a police cell is able to seek independent redress. Yet, a police officer in exactly the same position has only been able to bring a grievance internally against his managers or Force.

Importantly PIDA provides a framework for responsible whistleblowing in which the strongest protection is available to those who raise their concerns with their employer. While it also allows workers to raise substantial concerns outside their organisation with bodies such as the Criminal Cases Review Commission (or, in future the IPCC), its emphasis on internal whistleblowing distinguishes it from Part 2 of the Bill, as originally introduced, which was primarily concerned with whistleblowing direct to the IPCC.

Delivering the pledge
At present and without this amendment, an honest officer who was victimised for reporting wrongdoing will only be able to bring an internal grievance. This lack of a distinct remedy or right of independent redress is an overwhelming obstacle to the present regime. According to HMI’s report Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence, officers believe that if they complain they run the risk of being victimised for making the complaint.

“The Inspection found grievance procedures were widely held to be ineffective, with a misunderstanding of what they might achieve…in most forces, for a variety of reasons, there was little or no confidence in the system. …One force recently carried out an equality audit and, with a response rate of 53%, it revealed that 75% of police officers…believed it was either true or partly true that making a complaint or formal grievance would be held against them.”13

The provision in regulations and guidance that supervisors and managers should ensure that police whistleblowers are not victimised is also insufficient as HMI discovered:

“A concern emerged strongly during the Inspection that officers who are more senior will not support junior colleagues who challenge on an integrity issue. Once a manger, who has tried to challenge and rectify bad behaviour, has been undermined by those in more senior positions, perhaps because of weakness or nepotism, they are understandably less likely to make a second challenge.”14

This amendment rectifies these problems. For these reasons, Public Concern at Work welcomes this Government amendment to include police officers within the whistleblower protection of PIDA and asks you to support it.

  1. Hansard, House of Lords, 5 March 2002, column 218-219.
  2. Evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee by Rt Hon John Denham MP, Minister of State for the Home Office, 21 March 2002, question 502.
  3. House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Reform Bill, Second Report of Session 2001-02, HC 612, pg. 21.
  4. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence, June 1999, p. 3, paragraph 3.
  5. Hansard, House of Commons, 24 April 1998, column 1143-1144.
  6. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, point 6. Home Office, Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures, March 1999.
  7. PCA website: www.pca.gov.uk/investig/others.htm
  8. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence, June 1999, p. 56, paragraph 9.15.
  9. PCA website: www.pca.gov.uk/investig/others.htm
  10. Police Complaints Authority, Police Complaints Authority Call to Tackle Corruption, press release, 8 May 2000.
  11. Response from ACPO, 12 January 1998 to public consultation on PIDA.
  12. Section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act.
  13. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence, June 1999, p. 36, paragraph 5.35.
  14. Ibid. p. 62, paragraph 10.7.